{"post_id":"9l1w3n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The delay of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination for 293 days - while a Kavanaugh vote is being pushed for this week - is reason enough to vote against his nomination I know this post will seem extremely partisan, but I honestly need a credible defense of the GOP's actions. Of all the things the two parties have done, it's the hypocrisy on the part of Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans that has made me lose respect for the party. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and it was the Democrats delaying one nomination, while shoving their own through the process. I want to understand how McConnell and others Republicans can justify delaying Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year, while urging the need for an immediate vote on Brett Kavanaugh. After all, Garland was a consensus choice, a moderate candidate with an impeccable record. Republicans such as Orrin Hatch (who later refused Garland a hearing) personally vouched for his character and record. It seems the only reason behind denying the nominee a hearing was to oppose Obama, while holding out for the opportunity to nominate a far-right candidate after the 2016 election. I simply do not understand how McConnell and his colleagues can justify their actions. How can Lindsey Graham launch into an angry defense of Kavanaugh, when his party delayed a qualified nominee and left a SCOTUS seat open for months? I feel like there must be something I'm missing here. After all, these are senators - career politicians and statesmen - they must have some credible defense against charges of hypocrisy. Still, it seems to me, on the basis of what I've seen, that the GOP is arguing in bad faith. _____","c_root_id_A":"e73db5o","c_root_id_B":"e73jz68","created_at_utc_A":1538578941,"created_at_utc_B":1538584537,"score_A":261,"score_B":596,"human_ref_A":"Hypocrisy from Senate Republicans has nothing to do with the quality of the SCOTUS candidate. The job of the Senate is to evaluate the nominees and vote as to whether they believe that person is fit to be a Justice on the SC. The Republicans in the Senate failed to do their job when Garland was nominated and he wasn't given a fair shake, but their previous failure doesn't determine whether or not Kavanaugh is fit to be on the SC. Kavanaugh needs to be evaluated in a vacuum, without considering the prior failures by McConnell and friends. It's in that vacuum that he must be evaluated on - the numerous sexual assault and rape charges, the documented perjury, his potential problems with gambling and alcohol, and his temperament. Any of those areas is disqualifying for Kavanaugh, but he wasn't a part of McConnell's decision to abdicate his duties when it came to Garland and can't be held responsible for their hypocrisy.","human_ref_B":"Would it change your opinion if they _had_ held the vote, and just voted against him? Remember that Republicans held the Senate at the time. I'm not totally sure I see the difference between not confirming Garland procedurally vs. an up\/down vote. This article has the stat that of the 34 failed nominations in history, only 12 of them actually came to a vote. This LA Times article article makes the case that historically speaking, trying to get an opposing party Justice through on a presidential election year has only happened once, more than a hundred years ago, so historical precedent isn't exactly on the Democrats side. I think one way of resolving the hypocrisy charge is that the Republicans aren't mad about the Democrats holding up the nomination through procedural means, but through other means (bringing up new evidence at the very last minute). For it to be hypocritical, the two delay tactics would have to be essentially the same. Are they? I would argue no: in the one case, it's the Senate majority fulfilling their duties and abiding their mandate by not confirming a Justice acceptable to them (albeit not via an up\/down vote, which again is historically common). In the other case, it's the Senate minority exercising outsized impact via shrewd political games.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5596.0,"score_ratio":2.2835249042} {"post_id":"9l1w3n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The delay of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination for 293 days - while a Kavanaugh vote is being pushed for this week - is reason enough to vote against his nomination I know this post will seem extremely partisan, but I honestly need a credible defense of the GOP's actions. Of all the things the two parties have done, it's the hypocrisy on the part of Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans that has made me lose respect for the party. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and it was the Democrats delaying one nomination, while shoving their own through the process. I want to understand how McConnell and others Republicans can justify delaying Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year, while urging the need for an immediate vote on Brett Kavanaugh. After all, Garland was a consensus choice, a moderate candidate with an impeccable record. Republicans such as Orrin Hatch (who later refused Garland a hearing) personally vouched for his character and record. It seems the only reason behind denying the nominee a hearing was to oppose Obama, while holding out for the opportunity to nominate a far-right candidate after the 2016 election. I simply do not understand how McConnell and his colleagues can justify their actions. How can Lindsey Graham launch into an angry defense of Kavanaugh, when his party delayed a qualified nominee and left a SCOTUS seat open for months? I feel like there must be something I'm missing here. After all, these are senators - career politicians and statesmen - they must have some credible defense against charges of hypocrisy. Still, it seems to me, on the basis of what I've seen, that the GOP is arguing in bad faith. _____","c_root_id_A":"e73eshf","c_root_id_B":"e73jz68","created_at_utc_A":1538580202,"created_at_utc_B":1538584537,"score_A":189,"score_B":596,"human_ref_A":"Hypocrisy at the end of the day doesn't actually matter in politics. Both sides complain about the other side not holding up to standards they established last year but there are no real consequences. The act of blocking Garland had nothing to do with qualifications or wanting to hold the seat open until the American people got the chance to vote. It was purely about the opposition party wishing to block the governing party (in the executive branch) from being able to lock in a lifetime nomination to the court. At that point, when you realize that the fight is purely about power and not about any of the positioning statements it all makes sense. Even the so-called moderates (Collins, Flake, and Murkowski) want a conservative justice on the court. In that case, whether or not that judge is a rapist is less important than how they will vote for the next several decades. They want to support a nominee they can trust will blindly support the things they like while opposing the things they don't. All of the arguments on both sides are in \"bad faith\". The Dems are tactically correct in finding every crevice to slow and block every Republican nomination. The thing you are primarily missing here is that you believe that the system is functioning in good faith at any level. Since the Gingrich Revolution in the 90s, our government has moved more and more to this realization, collaboration with the other party means that your interests are harmed.","human_ref_B":"Would it change your opinion if they _had_ held the vote, and just voted against him? Remember that Republicans held the Senate at the time. I'm not totally sure I see the difference between not confirming Garland procedurally vs. an up\/down vote. This article has the stat that of the 34 failed nominations in history, only 12 of them actually came to a vote. This LA Times article article makes the case that historically speaking, trying to get an opposing party Justice through on a presidential election year has only happened once, more than a hundred years ago, so historical precedent isn't exactly on the Democrats side. I think one way of resolving the hypocrisy charge is that the Republicans aren't mad about the Democrats holding up the nomination through procedural means, but through other means (bringing up new evidence at the very last minute). For it to be hypocritical, the two delay tactics would have to be essentially the same. Are they? I would argue no: in the one case, it's the Senate majority fulfilling their duties and abiding their mandate by not confirming a Justice acceptable to them (albeit not via an up\/down vote, which again is historically common). In the other case, it's the Senate minority exercising outsized impact via shrewd political games.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4335.0,"score_ratio":3.1534391534} {"post_id":"9l1w3n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The delay of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination for 293 days - while a Kavanaugh vote is being pushed for this week - is reason enough to vote against his nomination I know this post will seem extremely partisan, but I honestly need a credible defense of the GOP's actions. Of all the things the two parties have done, it's the hypocrisy on the part of Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans that has made me lose respect for the party. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and it was the Democrats delaying one nomination, while shoving their own through the process. I want to understand how McConnell and others Republicans can justify delaying Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year, while urging the need for an immediate vote on Brett Kavanaugh. After all, Garland was a consensus choice, a moderate candidate with an impeccable record. Republicans such as Orrin Hatch (who later refused Garland a hearing) personally vouched for his character and record. It seems the only reason behind denying the nominee a hearing was to oppose Obama, while holding out for the opportunity to nominate a far-right candidate after the 2016 election. I simply do not understand how McConnell and his colleagues can justify their actions. How can Lindsey Graham launch into an angry defense of Kavanaugh, when his party delayed a qualified nominee and left a SCOTUS seat open for months? I feel like there must be something I'm missing here. After all, these are senators - career politicians and statesmen - they must have some credible defense against charges of hypocrisy. Still, it seems to me, on the basis of what I've seen, that the GOP is arguing in bad faith. _____","c_root_id_A":"e73j7zc","c_root_id_B":"e73jz68","created_at_utc_A":1538583910,"created_at_utc_B":1538584537,"score_A":44,"score_B":596,"human_ref_A":"1) Republicans actually controlled the majority of the Senate. They held the votes to advise and consent on the nomination. They again hold the Senate votes now. They are using their constitutionally granted authority as elected representatives. There is no \"shoving through the process.\" 2) Joe Biden himself opposed going through a nomination in an election year all the way back in '92. He wanted to avoid extreme politicization of the nomination and conflation with presidential election\/nomination politcs. https:\/\/www.politifact.com\/truth-o-meter\/article\/2016\/mar\/17\/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations I don't think this holds for *midterm* elections, otherwise the Senate could only exercise their authority every other year. And that's assuming that parties wouldn't then try to delay until after each election cycle. 3) The previous election was completed with the understanding of Supreme Court implications. The people in the Senate may have been elected there because of the weight of Supreme Court nomination. Edit: formatting and grammar","human_ref_B":"Would it change your opinion if they _had_ held the vote, and just voted against him? Remember that Republicans held the Senate at the time. I'm not totally sure I see the difference between not confirming Garland procedurally vs. an up\/down vote. This article has the stat that of the 34 failed nominations in history, only 12 of them actually came to a vote. This LA Times article article makes the case that historically speaking, trying to get an opposing party Justice through on a presidential election year has only happened once, more than a hundred years ago, so historical precedent isn't exactly on the Democrats side. I think one way of resolving the hypocrisy charge is that the Republicans aren't mad about the Democrats holding up the nomination through procedural means, but through other means (bringing up new evidence at the very last minute). For it to be hypocritical, the two delay tactics would have to be essentially the same. Are they? I would argue no: in the one case, it's the Senate majority fulfilling their duties and abiding their mandate by not confirming a Justice acceptable to them (albeit not via an up\/down vote, which again is historically common). In the other case, it's the Senate minority exercising outsized impact via shrewd political games.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":627.0,"score_ratio":13.5454545455} {"post_id":"9l1w3n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The delay of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination for 293 days - while a Kavanaugh vote is being pushed for this week - is reason enough to vote against his nomination I know this post will seem extremely partisan, but I honestly need a credible defense of the GOP's actions. Of all the things the two parties have done, it's the hypocrisy on the part of Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans that has made me lose respect for the party. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and it was the Democrats delaying one nomination, while shoving their own through the process. I want to understand how McConnell and others Republicans can justify delaying Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year, while urging the need for an immediate vote on Brett Kavanaugh. After all, Garland was a consensus choice, a moderate candidate with an impeccable record. Republicans such as Orrin Hatch (who later refused Garland a hearing) personally vouched for his character and record. It seems the only reason behind denying the nominee a hearing was to oppose Obama, while holding out for the opportunity to nominate a far-right candidate after the 2016 election. I simply do not understand how McConnell and his colleagues can justify their actions. How can Lindsey Graham launch into an angry defense of Kavanaugh, when his party delayed a qualified nominee and left a SCOTUS seat open for months? I feel like there must be something I'm missing here. After all, these are senators - career politicians and statesmen - they must have some credible defense against charges of hypocrisy. Still, it seems to me, on the basis of what I've seen, that the GOP is arguing in bad faith. _____","c_root_id_A":"e73g7pn","c_root_id_B":"e73jz68","created_at_utc_A":1538581403,"created_at_utc_B":1538584537,"score_A":25,"score_B":596,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you that the Republicans are using a partisan standard: But they are also able to articulate a set of rules that justifies Garland's 293 day delay while not affording the same to Kavanaugh: The nature of the election cycle. I don't believe this is what they would actually do, but here's the distinction anyway: In 2016, McConnell argued that the Senate should allow the American People to weigh in on the vacancy by not voting holding confirmation hearings during the (2016) election year. He was vague in what he meant, but in retrospect now says this applied to 2016 because it was a Presidential election year. Why didn't he mean any Federal election year? Well, the Senate has about 1\/3 of its seats up for re-election every 2 years. Effectively, this would mean the Senate can only provide the advice\/consent stipulated by the Constitution half the time. Since the president is the one appointing, it makes sense that the next president should have some weight on a nominations' timing. To take to an extreme: Suppose it is November 2020, Democrats have just won the presidency and a landslide victory in the Senate. Suppose at this time, Ruth Bade Ginsburg retires or passes away: Should Trump be allowed to appoint her successor and have it confirmed by the (then) current Senate? Probably not, and such an appointments' timing would be unprecedented. (although I'd bet that McConnell would work to push through a nominee in this case anyway) In Kavanaugh's case, it doesn't matter whether the confirmation happens now, or in 293 days: Trump will still be the President giving the nomination.","human_ref_B":"Would it change your opinion if they _had_ held the vote, and just voted against him? Remember that Republicans held the Senate at the time. I'm not totally sure I see the difference between not confirming Garland procedurally vs. an up\/down vote. This article has the stat that of the 34 failed nominations in history, only 12 of them actually came to a vote. This LA Times article article makes the case that historically speaking, trying to get an opposing party Justice through on a presidential election year has only happened once, more than a hundred years ago, so historical precedent isn't exactly on the Democrats side. I think one way of resolving the hypocrisy charge is that the Republicans aren't mad about the Democrats holding up the nomination through procedural means, but through other means (bringing up new evidence at the very last minute). For it to be hypocritical, the two delay tactics would have to be essentially the same. Are they? I would argue no: in the one case, it's the Senate majority fulfilling their duties and abiding their mandate by not confirming a Justice acceptable to them (albeit not via an up\/down vote, which again is historically common). In the other case, it's the Senate minority exercising outsized impact via shrewd political games.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3134.0,"score_ratio":23.84} {"post_id":"9l1w3n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The delay of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination for 293 days - while a Kavanaugh vote is being pushed for this week - is reason enough to vote against his nomination I know this post will seem extremely partisan, but I honestly need a credible defense of the GOP's actions. Of all the things the two parties have done, it's the hypocrisy on the part of Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans that has made me lose respect for the party. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and it was the Democrats delaying one nomination, while shoving their own through the process. I want to understand how McConnell and others Republicans can justify delaying Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year, while urging the need for an immediate vote on Brett Kavanaugh. After all, Garland was a consensus choice, a moderate candidate with an impeccable record. Republicans such as Orrin Hatch (who later refused Garland a hearing) personally vouched for his character and record. It seems the only reason behind denying the nominee a hearing was to oppose Obama, while holding out for the opportunity to nominate a far-right candidate after the 2016 election. I simply do not understand how McConnell and his colleagues can justify their actions. How can Lindsey Graham launch into an angry defense of Kavanaugh, when his party delayed a qualified nominee and left a SCOTUS seat open for months? I feel like there must be something I'm missing here. After all, these are senators - career politicians and statesmen - they must have some credible defense against charges of hypocrisy. Still, it seems to me, on the basis of what I've seen, that the GOP is arguing in bad faith. _____","c_root_id_A":"e73gin6","c_root_id_B":"e73jz68","created_at_utc_A":1538581651,"created_at_utc_B":1538584537,"score_A":17,"score_B":596,"human_ref_A":"My argument about this is less about what the senate did to Obama\u2019s choice of Garland, and more about them needing to do their damn job. I hated that they waited over 293 days to wait for the next election to replace a Supreme Court seat, and I hate the idea of ever doing so. Those that say \u201cit\u2019s only fair because the republicans did it first\u201d, are just making life worse for Americans. Doing wrong because they did wrong, does not make you doing wrong right. We are all taught that as children, yet our elected officials seem to think the opposite. Another major point... it was argued when Neil Gorsuch was pushed through, that he \u201cstole\u201d Merrick Garlands seat. Now Kavanaugh is supposedly stealing his seat. My point being... how many times are they going to argue about Merrick Garland\u2019s nomination being treated unfairly? It was a clearly known issue in the 2016 election, yet a republican majority occurred. No matter how angry you are over it, the American public already got over it\/chose to go with these current senators. At this rate, I can imagine the next time a seat opens up, that the Democrats will claim that the seat will be stolen from Garland if a republican senate\/president is able to push through a judge. It\u2019s just a childish straw man argument that they are using to draw things out and delay the already elected\/voted for politicians from completing the job we elected them to do.","human_ref_B":"Would it change your opinion if they _had_ held the vote, and just voted against him? Remember that Republicans held the Senate at the time. I'm not totally sure I see the difference between not confirming Garland procedurally vs. an up\/down vote. This article has the stat that of the 34 failed nominations in history, only 12 of them actually came to a vote. This LA Times article article makes the case that historically speaking, trying to get an opposing party Justice through on a presidential election year has only happened once, more than a hundred years ago, so historical precedent isn't exactly on the Democrats side. I think one way of resolving the hypocrisy charge is that the Republicans aren't mad about the Democrats holding up the nomination through procedural means, but through other means (bringing up new evidence at the very last minute). For it to be hypocritical, the two delay tactics would have to be essentially the same. Are they? I would argue no: in the one case, it's the Senate majority fulfilling their duties and abiding their mandate by not confirming a Justice acceptable to them (albeit not via an up\/down vote, which again is historically common). In the other case, it's the Senate minority exercising outsized impact via shrewd political games.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2886.0,"score_ratio":35.0588235294} {"post_id":"9l1w3n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The delay of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination for 293 days - while a Kavanaugh vote is being pushed for this week - is reason enough to vote against his nomination I know this post will seem extremely partisan, but I honestly need a credible defense of the GOP's actions. Of all the things the two parties have done, it's the hypocrisy on the part of Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans that has made me lose respect for the party. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and it was the Democrats delaying one nomination, while shoving their own through the process. I want to understand how McConnell and others Republicans can justify delaying Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year, while urging the need for an immediate vote on Brett Kavanaugh. After all, Garland was a consensus choice, a moderate candidate with an impeccable record. Republicans such as Orrin Hatch (who later refused Garland a hearing) personally vouched for his character and record. It seems the only reason behind denying the nominee a hearing was to oppose Obama, while holding out for the opportunity to nominate a far-right candidate after the 2016 election. I simply do not understand how McConnell and his colleagues can justify their actions. How can Lindsey Graham launch into an angry defense of Kavanaugh, when his party delayed a qualified nominee and left a SCOTUS seat open for months? I feel like there must be something I'm missing here. After all, these are senators - career politicians and statesmen - they must have some credible defense against charges of hypocrisy. Still, it seems to me, on the basis of what I've seen, that the GOP is arguing in bad faith. _____","c_root_id_A":"e73g7pn","c_root_id_B":"e73j7zc","created_at_utc_A":1538581403,"created_at_utc_B":1538583910,"score_A":25,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you that the Republicans are using a partisan standard: But they are also able to articulate a set of rules that justifies Garland's 293 day delay while not affording the same to Kavanaugh: The nature of the election cycle. I don't believe this is what they would actually do, but here's the distinction anyway: In 2016, McConnell argued that the Senate should allow the American People to weigh in on the vacancy by not voting holding confirmation hearings during the (2016) election year. He was vague in what he meant, but in retrospect now says this applied to 2016 because it was a Presidential election year. Why didn't he mean any Federal election year? Well, the Senate has about 1\/3 of its seats up for re-election every 2 years. Effectively, this would mean the Senate can only provide the advice\/consent stipulated by the Constitution half the time. Since the president is the one appointing, it makes sense that the next president should have some weight on a nominations' timing. To take to an extreme: Suppose it is November 2020, Democrats have just won the presidency and a landslide victory in the Senate. Suppose at this time, Ruth Bade Ginsburg retires or passes away: Should Trump be allowed to appoint her successor and have it confirmed by the (then) current Senate? Probably not, and such an appointments' timing would be unprecedented. (although I'd bet that McConnell would work to push through a nominee in this case anyway) In Kavanaugh's case, it doesn't matter whether the confirmation happens now, or in 293 days: Trump will still be the President giving the nomination.","human_ref_B":"1) Republicans actually controlled the majority of the Senate. They held the votes to advise and consent on the nomination. They again hold the Senate votes now. They are using their constitutionally granted authority as elected representatives. There is no \"shoving through the process.\" 2) Joe Biden himself opposed going through a nomination in an election year all the way back in '92. He wanted to avoid extreme politicization of the nomination and conflation with presidential election\/nomination politcs. https:\/\/www.politifact.com\/truth-o-meter\/article\/2016\/mar\/17\/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations I don't think this holds for *midterm* elections, otherwise the Senate could only exercise their authority every other year. And that's assuming that parties wouldn't then try to delay until after each election cycle. 3) The previous election was completed with the understanding of Supreme Court implications. The people in the Senate may have been elected there because of the weight of Supreme Court nomination. Edit: formatting and grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2507.0,"score_ratio":1.76} {"post_id":"9l1w3n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The delay of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination for 293 days - while a Kavanaugh vote is being pushed for this week - is reason enough to vote against his nomination I know this post will seem extremely partisan, but I honestly need a credible defense of the GOP's actions. Of all the things the two parties have done, it's the hypocrisy on the part of Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans that has made me lose respect for the party. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and it was the Democrats delaying one nomination, while shoving their own through the process. I want to understand how McConnell and others Republicans can justify delaying Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year, while urging the need for an immediate vote on Brett Kavanaugh. After all, Garland was a consensus choice, a moderate candidate with an impeccable record. Republicans such as Orrin Hatch (who later refused Garland a hearing) personally vouched for his character and record. It seems the only reason behind denying the nominee a hearing was to oppose Obama, while holding out for the opportunity to nominate a far-right candidate after the 2016 election. I simply do not understand how McConnell and his colleagues can justify their actions. How can Lindsey Graham launch into an angry defense of Kavanaugh, when his party delayed a qualified nominee and left a SCOTUS seat open for months? I feel like there must be something I'm missing here. After all, these are senators - career politicians and statesmen - they must have some credible defense against charges of hypocrisy. Still, it seems to me, on the basis of what I've seen, that the GOP is arguing in bad faith. _____","c_root_id_A":"e73gin6","c_root_id_B":"e73j7zc","created_at_utc_A":1538581651,"created_at_utc_B":1538583910,"score_A":17,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"My argument about this is less about what the senate did to Obama\u2019s choice of Garland, and more about them needing to do their damn job. I hated that they waited over 293 days to wait for the next election to replace a Supreme Court seat, and I hate the idea of ever doing so. Those that say \u201cit\u2019s only fair because the republicans did it first\u201d, are just making life worse for Americans. Doing wrong because they did wrong, does not make you doing wrong right. We are all taught that as children, yet our elected officials seem to think the opposite. Another major point... it was argued when Neil Gorsuch was pushed through, that he \u201cstole\u201d Merrick Garlands seat. Now Kavanaugh is supposedly stealing his seat. My point being... how many times are they going to argue about Merrick Garland\u2019s nomination being treated unfairly? It was a clearly known issue in the 2016 election, yet a republican majority occurred. No matter how angry you are over it, the American public already got over it\/chose to go with these current senators. At this rate, I can imagine the next time a seat opens up, that the Democrats will claim that the seat will be stolen from Garland if a republican senate\/president is able to push through a judge. It\u2019s just a childish straw man argument that they are using to draw things out and delay the already elected\/voted for politicians from completing the job we elected them to do.","human_ref_B":"1) Republicans actually controlled the majority of the Senate. They held the votes to advise and consent on the nomination. They again hold the Senate votes now. They are using their constitutionally granted authority as elected representatives. There is no \"shoving through the process.\" 2) Joe Biden himself opposed going through a nomination in an election year all the way back in '92. He wanted to avoid extreme politicization of the nomination and conflation with presidential election\/nomination politcs. https:\/\/www.politifact.com\/truth-o-meter\/article\/2016\/mar\/17\/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations I don't think this holds for *midterm* elections, otherwise the Senate could only exercise their authority every other year. And that's assuming that parties wouldn't then try to delay until after each election cycle. 3) The previous election was completed with the understanding of Supreme Court implications. The people in the Senate may have been elected there because of the weight of Supreme Court nomination. Edit: formatting and grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2259.0,"score_ratio":2.5882352941} {"post_id":"9l1w3n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The delay of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination for 293 days - while a Kavanaugh vote is being pushed for this week - is reason enough to vote against his nomination I know this post will seem extremely partisan, but I honestly need a credible defense of the GOP's actions. Of all the things the two parties have done, it's the hypocrisy on the part of Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans that has made me lose respect for the party. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and it was the Democrats delaying one nomination, while shoving their own through the process. I want to understand how McConnell and others Republicans can justify delaying Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year, while urging the need for an immediate vote on Brett Kavanaugh. After all, Garland was a consensus choice, a moderate candidate with an impeccable record. Republicans such as Orrin Hatch (who later refused Garland a hearing) personally vouched for his character and record. It seems the only reason behind denying the nominee a hearing was to oppose Obama, while holding out for the opportunity to nominate a far-right candidate after the 2016 election. I simply do not understand how McConnell and his colleagues can justify their actions. How can Lindsey Graham launch into an angry defense of Kavanaugh, when his party delayed a qualified nominee and left a SCOTUS seat open for months? I feel like there must be something I'm missing here. After all, these are senators - career politicians and statesmen - they must have some credible defense against charges of hypocrisy. Still, it seems to me, on the basis of what I've seen, that the GOP is arguing in bad faith. _____","c_root_id_A":"e73g7pn","c_root_id_B":"e748c21","created_at_utc_A":1538581403,"created_at_utc_B":1538604408,"score_A":25,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you that the Republicans are using a partisan standard: But they are also able to articulate a set of rules that justifies Garland's 293 day delay while not affording the same to Kavanaugh: The nature of the election cycle. I don't believe this is what they would actually do, but here's the distinction anyway: In 2016, McConnell argued that the Senate should allow the American People to weigh in on the vacancy by not voting holding confirmation hearings during the (2016) election year. He was vague in what he meant, but in retrospect now says this applied to 2016 because it was a Presidential election year. Why didn't he mean any Federal election year? Well, the Senate has about 1\/3 of its seats up for re-election every 2 years. Effectively, this would mean the Senate can only provide the advice\/consent stipulated by the Constitution half the time. Since the president is the one appointing, it makes sense that the next president should have some weight on a nominations' timing. To take to an extreme: Suppose it is November 2020, Democrats have just won the presidency and a landslide victory in the Senate. Suppose at this time, Ruth Bade Ginsburg retires or passes away: Should Trump be allowed to appoint her successor and have it confirmed by the (then) current Senate? Probably not, and such an appointments' timing would be unprecedented. (although I'd bet that McConnell would work to push through a nominee in this case anyway) In Kavanaugh's case, it doesn't matter whether the confirmation happens now, or in 293 days: Trump will still be the President giving the nomination.","human_ref_B":"In a purely partisan sense? Sure. Is that really where we want to be as a country? Ultimately this is a feedback loop that makes the supreme court just a captured sub-group like the FCC. It's not a recipe for a functional government. Yes this is unfair, not representative, and shady as fuck... But if it keeps escalating we can't function as a republic. ... This said, and for very similar reasons, this investigation needs to occur and it needs to take as long as it needs to be completed thoroughly and transparently. It doesn't matter if Republicans don't think that there is anything wrong here, half the country does. And all of those people are Americans, Americans who they also represent. Failure to properly investigate this further erodes faith in government as an institution. If people cannot trust the impartiality of the Supreme Court, that is a branch of our checks and balances which has failed and only points to a more non-representative government. it's important to remember that government exists as an extension of the will of the people. All of the American people, not just the ones who vote Republican. So while I would never agree that we should hold up confirming an acceptable candidate like that party over country piece of shit McConnell, that has little bearing on whether or not this investigation should continue as long as it needs to.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23005.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"9l1w3n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The delay of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination for 293 days - while a Kavanaugh vote is being pushed for this week - is reason enough to vote against his nomination I know this post will seem extremely partisan, but I honestly need a credible defense of the GOP's actions. Of all the things the two parties have done, it's the hypocrisy on the part of Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans that has made me lose respect for the party. I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, and it was the Democrats delaying one nomination, while shoving their own through the process. I want to understand how McConnell and others Republicans can justify delaying Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year, while urging the need for an immediate vote on Brett Kavanaugh. After all, Garland was a consensus choice, a moderate candidate with an impeccable record. Republicans such as Orrin Hatch (who later refused Garland a hearing) personally vouched for his character and record. It seems the only reason behind denying the nominee a hearing was to oppose Obama, while holding out for the opportunity to nominate a far-right candidate after the 2016 election. I simply do not understand how McConnell and his colleagues can justify their actions. How can Lindsey Graham launch into an angry defense of Kavanaugh, when his party delayed a qualified nominee and left a SCOTUS seat open for months? I feel like there must be something I'm missing here. After all, these are senators - career politicians and statesmen - they must have some credible defense against charges of hypocrisy. Still, it seems to me, on the basis of what I've seen, that the GOP is arguing in bad faith. _____","c_root_id_A":"e748c21","c_root_id_B":"e73gin6","created_at_utc_A":1538604408,"created_at_utc_B":1538581651,"score_A":30,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"In a purely partisan sense? Sure. Is that really where we want to be as a country? Ultimately this is a feedback loop that makes the supreme court just a captured sub-group like the FCC. It's not a recipe for a functional government. Yes this is unfair, not representative, and shady as fuck... But if it keeps escalating we can't function as a republic. ... This said, and for very similar reasons, this investigation needs to occur and it needs to take as long as it needs to be completed thoroughly and transparently. It doesn't matter if Republicans don't think that there is anything wrong here, half the country does. And all of those people are Americans, Americans who they also represent. Failure to properly investigate this further erodes faith in government as an institution. If people cannot trust the impartiality of the Supreme Court, that is a branch of our checks and balances which has failed and only points to a more non-representative government. it's important to remember that government exists as an extension of the will of the people. All of the American people, not just the ones who vote Republican. So while I would never agree that we should hold up confirming an acceptable candidate like that party over country piece of shit McConnell, that has little bearing on whether or not this investigation should continue as long as it needs to.","human_ref_B":"My argument about this is less about what the senate did to Obama\u2019s choice of Garland, and more about them needing to do their damn job. I hated that they waited over 293 days to wait for the next election to replace a Supreme Court seat, and I hate the idea of ever doing so. Those that say \u201cit\u2019s only fair because the republicans did it first\u201d, are just making life worse for Americans. Doing wrong because they did wrong, does not make you doing wrong right. We are all taught that as children, yet our elected officials seem to think the opposite. Another major point... it was argued when Neil Gorsuch was pushed through, that he \u201cstole\u201d Merrick Garlands seat. Now Kavanaugh is supposedly stealing his seat. My point being... how many times are they going to argue about Merrick Garland\u2019s nomination being treated unfairly? It was a clearly known issue in the 2016 election, yet a republican majority occurred. No matter how angry you are over it, the American public already got over it\/chose to go with these current senators. At this rate, I can imagine the next time a seat opens up, that the Democrats will claim that the seat will be stolen from Garland if a republican senate\/president is able to push through a judge. It\u2019s just a childish straw man argument that they are using to draw things out and delay the already elected\/voted for politicians from completing the job we elected them to do.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22757.0,"score_ratio":1.7647058824} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2perfh","c_root_id_B":"i2pck7f","created_at_utc_A":1648642421,"created_at_utc_B":1648641143,"score_A":1271,"score_B":309,"human_ref_A":"Well, I don't disagree, so it's kind of hard to change your view. (I think most people agree Smith should have been removed, and his award should have been accepted on his behalf). But I'll bring up a name I mentioned in another thread: Roman Polanski. He drugged and raped a minor in 1977, and then fled America before he could serve any punishment. He can't return to American soil because he's a fugitive. In 2003, the Academy gave him the Best Director Oscar. Fair enough, The Pianist was a fine film, but I think that demonstrates that the Academy doesn't care one bit about ethics, morals, or doing the right thing. They had zero issues giving a man who raped a minor (and it's not speculation, he was charged) one of the most significant Oscar awards (it's considered one of the \"top five\" awards). My point is if they didn't have any qualms giving him an Oscar, them not doing anything to Smith at least keeps them consistent. I would have a bigger issue with them taking away Smith's Oscar if they didn't also take away Polanski's. (Or anyone else who has ever done bad things). So I guess that's my attempt to change your view, that you need to realize the Academy is a business and they aren't going to make moral or ethical judgments. Oh sure, they'll SAY they care about this and that, but actions speak louder than words.","human_ref_B":"I think people were confused at what happened and if it was scripted or not. A slap happens quickly and by the time security realized what might have happened, will already walked off stage and sat down. He cussed some words but it lasted a total of probably 15 seconds. Chris then continued hosting. So in a short span of what was broadcasted on TV it makes more sense to just let the show go on and not make things bigger than what was over. I think nobody couldvr made the decision to not let will go back on stage.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1278.0,"score_ratio":4.1132686084} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2perfh","c_root_id_B":"i2pa0p8","created_at_utc_A":1648642421,"created_at_utc_B":1648639582,"score_A":1271,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"Well, I don't disagree, so it's kind of hard to change your view. (I think most people agree Smith should have been removed, and his award should have been accepted on his behalf). But I'll bring up a name I mentioned in another thread: Roman Polanski. He drugged and raped a minor in 1977, and then fled America before he could serve any punishment. He can't return to American soil because he's a fugitive. In 2003, the Academy gave him the Best Director Oscar. Fair enough, The Pianist was a fine film, but I think that demonstrates that the Academy doesn't care one bit about ethics, morals, or doing the right thing. They had zero issues giving a man who raped a minor (and it's not speculation, he was charged) one of the most significant Oscar awards (it's considered one of the \"top five\" awards). My point is if they didn't have any qualms giving him an Oscar, them not doing anything to Smith at least keeps them consistent. I would have a bigger issue with them taking away Smith's Oscar if they didn't also take away Polanski's. (Or anyone else who has ever done bad things). So I guess that's my attempt to change your view, that you need to realize the Academy is a business and they aren't going to make moral or ethical judgments. Oh sure, they'll SAY they care about this and that, but actions speak louder than words.","human_ref_B":"How many CMV posts do we need on this topic. \ud83e\udd26\ud83c\udffb\u200d\u2642\ufe0f","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2839.0,"score_ratio":31.0} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2perfh","c_root_id_B":"i2pefnk","created_at_utc_A":1648642421,"created_at_utc_B":1648642234,"score_A":1271,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"Well, I don't disagree, so it's kind of hard to change your view. (I think most people agree Smith should have been removed, and his award should have been accepted on his behalf). But I'll bring up a name I mentioned in another thread: Roman Polanski. He drugged and raped a minor in 1977, and then fled America before he could serve any punishment. He can't return to American soil because he's a fugitive. In 2003, the Academy gave him the Best Director Oscar. Fair enough, The Pianist was a fine film, but I think that demonstrates that the Academy doesn't care one bit about ethics, morals, or doing the right thing. They had zero issues giving a man who raped a minor (and it's not speculation, he was charged) one of the most significant Oscar awards (it's considered one of the \"top five\" awards). My point is if they didn't have any qualms giving him an Oscar, them not doing anything to Smith at least keeps them consistent. I would have a bigger issue with them taking away Smith's Oscar if they didn't also take away Polanski's. (Or anyone else who has ever done bad things). So I guess that's my attempt to change your view, that you need to realize the Academy is a business and they aren't going to make moral or ethical judgments. Oh sure, they'll SAY they care about this and that, but actions speak louder than words.","human_ref_B":"When you say he \"should\", you are implying a goal. Why should anyone do anything? To achieve a certain outcome, I would say. In this case, the organization behind The Oscars, their goal is to maximize entertainment. More entertainment, more ratings, more money. Since they are the ones who could take any action, from their perspective they should not have done anything. In fact, this couldn't have been better for them. Society has been nonstop talking about that night, for something they didn't manufacture (allegedly). Your goal of what you want out of that event doesn't align with the people behind the event. They shouldn't have done anything if you consider the utility they are trying to maximize. Edit: To clarify, I am not condoning one person assaulting another. The CMV was on whether Will Smith should've been ejected, not whether The Oscars had a moral obligation to take action (such as ejecting him).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":187.0,"score_ratio":34.3513513514} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2p8p7n","c_root_id_B":"i2perfh","created_at_utc_A":1648638713,"created_at_utc_B":1648642421,"score_A":39,"score_B":1271,"human_ref_A":"People want to be outraged. Right now they're outraged by a slap with little response. If he were removed, people would be outraged that a black man got forcably removed for a minor slap. The race issue would be much worse PR.","human_ref_B":"Well, I don't disagree, so it's kind of hard to change your view. (I think most people agree Smith should have been removed, and his award should have been accepted on his behalf). But I'll bring up a name I mentioned in another thread: Roman Polanski. He drugged and raped a minor in 1977, and then fled America before he could serve any punishment. He can't return to American soil because he's a fugitive. In 2003, the Academy gave him the Best Director Oscar. Fair enough, The Pianist was a fine film, but I think that demonstrates that the Academy doesn't care one bit about ethics, morals, or doing the right thing. They had zero issues giving a man who raped a minor (and it's not speculation, he was charged) one of the most significant Oscar awards (it's considered one of the \"top five\" awards). My point is if they didn't have any qualms giving him an Oscar, them not doing anything to Smith at least keeps them consistent. I would have a bigger issue with them taking away Smith's Oscar if they didn't also take away Polanski's. (Or anyone else who has ever done bad things). So I guess that's my attempt to change your view, that you need to realize the Academy is a business and they aren't going to make moral or ethical judgments. Oh sure, they'll SAY they care about this and that, but actions speak louder than words.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3708.0,"score_ratio":32.5897435897} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2pck7f","c_root_id_B":"i2pa0p8","created_at_utc_A":1648641143,"created_at_utc_B":1648639582,"score_A":309,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"I think people were confused at what happened and if it was scripted or not. A slap happens quickly and by the time security realized what might have happened, will already walked off stage and sat down. He cussed some words but it lasted a total of probably 15 seconds. Chris then continued hosting. So in a short span of what was broadcasted on TV it makes more sense to just let the show go on and not make things bigger than what was over. I think nobody couldvr made the decision to not let will go back on stage.","human_ref_B":"How many CMV posts do we need on this topic. \ud83e\udd26\ud83c\udffb\u200d\u2642\ufe0f","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1561.0,"score_ratio":7.5365853659} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2p8p7n","c_root_id_B":"i2pck7f","created_at_utc_A":1648638713,"created_at_utc_B":1648641143,"score_A":39,"score_B":309,"human_ref_A":"People want to be outraged. Right now they're outraged by a slap with little response. If he were removed, people would be outraged that a black man got forcably removed for a minor slap. The race issue would be much worse PR.","human_ref_B":"I think people were confused at what happened and if it was scripted or not. A slap happens quickly and by the time security realized what might have happened, will already walked off stage and sat down. He cussed some words but it lasted a total of probably 15 seconds. Chris then continued hosting. So in a short span of what was broadcasted on TV it makes more sense to just let the show go on and not make things bigger than what was over. I think nobody couldvr made the decision to not let will go back on stage.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2430.0,"score_ratio":7.9230769231} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2pg0qf","c_root_id_B":"i2pa0p8","created_at_utc_A":1648643107,"created_at_utc_B":1648639582,"score_A":211,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"I really think this discourse is super tired already, but I'll give it a go. First off, Chris Rock wasn't the host just to clarify that. He was only there to present best documentary, which means that his jokes came relatively out of nowhere when most of the other presenters for the night were a lot tamer and mellow comparatively. That might've added to the anger that Smith felt since it felt mildly disjointed compared to the tone the rest of the night, though obviously it doesn't. To the people who acting outraged about this, do you care about the Oscars? I watch every year because I love film and I find the Oscars interesting. Chris Rock and Will Smith have had a personal and professional relationship for 35 years at this point, while Smith was wildly unprofessional to say the least and completely overreacted, when it's two people who known each other for as long a time as that, I don't think we can really have an accurate assessment about all of the factors that lead up to it. Chris Rock apologized publicly to Will Smith as did Will Smith to Chris Rock, neither of the parties involved are making this more than what happened, I don't really understand the fascination with seeing Smith punished even greater for... for what exactly? I've seen plenty of times where long time friends will have a quick fight over something that's said and afterwards both parties are still friends. Should I have called the police? Reported an assault and battery even though the parties involved were already satisfied with the outcome? To expect an instant reaction and rules change from a hoity-toity awards show is really odd, since this is such an unprecedented event. I get that it felt weird to have him accept his award, but the alternative is handing out an award when there's no plan for what to do afterwards. There's been posthumous wins before, there's been times actors haven't been in attendance, but there's always been a plan or a surrogate to accept in their place. Is slapping a friend who crossed a line such an extreme action that it warrants kicking the winner of one of the awards out of the theatre after a long career, with zero plan in place to handle it? Maybe, but I think it makes complete sense that after such a jarring and shocking event, there weren't immediate plans and SOPs that they were able to follow since this was completely unprecedented.","human_ref_B":"How many CMV posts do we need on this topic. \ud83e\udd26\ud83c\udffb\u200d\u2642\ufe0f","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3525.0,"score_ratio":5.1463414634} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2pg0qf","c_root_id_B":"i2pefnk","created_at_utc_A":1648643107,"created_at_utc_B":1648642234,"score_A":211,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"I really think this discourse is super tired already, but I'll give it a go. First off, Chris Rock wasn't the host just to clarify that. He was only there to present best documentary, which means that his jokes came relatively out of nowhere when most of the other presenters for the night were a lot tamer and mellow comparatively. That might've added to the anger that Smith felt since it felt mildly disjointed compared to the tone the rest of the night, though obviously it doesn't. To the people who acting outraged about this, do you care about the Oscars? I watch every year because I love film and I find the Oscars interesting. Chris Rock and Will Smith have had a personal and professional relationship for 35 years at this point, while Smith was wildly unprofessional to say the least and completely overreacted, when it's two people who known each other for as long a time as that, I don't think we can really have an accurate assessment about all of the factors that lead up to it. Chris Rock apologized publicly to Will Smith as did Will Smith to Chris Rock, neither of the parties involved are making this more than what happened, I don't really understand the fascination with seeing Smith punished even greater for... for what exactly? I've seen plenty of times where long time friends will have a quick fight over something that's said and afterwards both parties are still friends. Should I have called the police? Reported an assault and battery even though the parties involved were already satisfied with the outcome? To expect an instant reaction and rules change from a hoity-toity awards show is really odd, since this is such an unprecedented event. I get that it felt weird to have him accept his award, but the alternative is handing out an award when there's no plan for what to do afterwards. There's been posthumous wins before, there's been times actors haven't been in attendance, but there's always been a plan or a surrogate to accept in their place. Is slapping a friend who crossed a line such an extreme action that it warrants kicking the winner of one of the awards out of the theatre after a long career, with zero plan in place to handle it? Maybe, but I think it makes complete sense that after such a jarring and shocking event, there weren't immediate plans and SOPs that they were able to follow since this was completely unprecedented.","human_ref_B":"When you say he \"should\", you are implying a goal. Why should anyone do anything? To achieve a certain outcome, I would say. In this case, the organization behind The Oscars, their goal is to maximize entertainment. More entertainment, more ratings, more money. Since they are the ones who could take any action, from their perspective they should not have done anything. In fact, this couldn't have been better for them. Society has been nonstop talking about that night, for something they didn't manufacture (allegedly). Your goal of what you want out of that event doesn't align with the people behind the event. They shouldn't have done anything if you consider the utility they are trying to maximize. Edit: To clarify, I am not condoning one person assaulting another. The CMV was on whether Will Smith should've been ejected, not whether The Oscars had a moral obligation to take action (such as ejecting him).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":873.0,"score_ratio":5.7027027027} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2p8p7n","c_root_id_B":"i2pg0qf","created_at_utc_A":1648638713,"created_at_utc_B":1648643107,"score_A":39,"score_B":211,"human_ref_A":"People want to be outraged. Right now they're outraged by a slap with little response. If he were removed, people would be outraged that a black man got forcably removed for a minor slap. The race issue would be much worse PR.","human_ref_B":"I really think this discourse is super tired already, but I'll give it a go. First off, Chris Rock wasn't the host just to clarify that. He was only there to present best documentary, which means that his jokes came relatively out of nowhere when most of the other presenters for the night were a lot tamer and mellow comparatively. That might've added to the anger that Smith felt since it felt mildly disjointed compared to the tone the rest of the night, though obviously it doesn't. To the people who acting outraged about this, do you care about the Oscars? I watch every year because I love film and I find the Oscars interesting. Chris Rock and Will Smith have had a personal and professional relationship for 35 years at this point, while Smith was wildly unprofessional to say the least and completely overreacted, when it's two people who known each other for as long a time as that, I don't think we can really have an accurate assessment about all of the factors that lead up to it. Chris Rock apologized publicly to Will Smith as did Will Smith to Chris Rock, neither of the parties involved are making this more than what happened, I don't really understand the fascination with seeing Smith punished even greater for... for what exactly? I've seen plenty of times where long time friends will have a quick fight over something that's said and afterwards both parties are still friends. Should I have called the police? Reported an assault and battery even though the parties involved were already satisfied with the outcome? To expect an instant reaction and rules change from a hoity-toity awards show is really odd, since this is such an unprecedented event. I get that it felt weird to have him accept his award, but the alternative is handing out an award when there's no plan for what to do afterwards. There's been posthumous wins before, there's been times actors haven't been in attendance, but there's always been a plan or a surrogate to accept in their place. Is slapping a friend who crossed a line such an extreme action that it warrants kicking the winner of one of the awards out of the theatre after a long career, with zero plan in place to handle it? Maybe, but I think it makes complete sense that after such a jarring and shocking event, there weren't immediate plans and SOPs that they were able to follow since this was completely unprecedented.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4394.0,"score_ratio":5.4102564103} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2prpph","c_root_id_B":"i2pa0p8","created_at_utc_A":1648648724,"created_at_utc_B":1648639582,"score_A":42,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"Y\u2019all gotta stop pearl clutching. Dude slapped another dude for lame joke. It ain\u2019t that serious. If Chris Rock felt it was assault or it warranted intervention it would have happened. Instead both people move on to greener pastures. Smith gets his Oscar and Rock gets a Netflix special of new material. The only people suffering here are those forced to witness the unending discourse about race relations and Oscar decorum (the latter of which is really pretentious and pointless. We gave an Oscar to Shrek, I don\u2019t think we have to care this much about the sanctity of these awards.) Also they never took these awards away from Weinstein or Polanski despite overwhelming evidence of their crimes, who cares if Smith had a little diva moment. He got a standing ovation for the audience ignoring him not being able to take a joke? Polanski got one for escaping justice for assaulting a teenage girl. We have bigger fish to fry. The real problem here is everyone\u2019s obsession with trivial garbage. None of this matters. Smith shouldn\u2019t give back the Oscar. Rock shouldn\u2019t apologize to anyone. It was a fun moment we should all just laugh off.","human_ref_B":"How many CMV posts do we need on this topic. \ud83e\udd26\ud83c\udffb\u200d\u2642\ufe0f","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9142.0,"score_ratio":1.0243902439} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2p8p7n","c_root_id_B":"i2pa0p8","created_at_utc_A":1648638713,"created_at_utc_B":1648639582,"score_A":39,"score_B":41,"human_ref_A":"People want to be outraged. Right now they're outraged by a slap with little response. If he were removed, people would be outraged that a black man got forcably removed for a minor slap. The race issue would be much worse PR.","human_ref_B":"How many CMV posts do we need on this topic. \ud83e\udd26\ud83c\udffb\u200d\u2642\ufe0f","labels":0,"seconds_difference":869.0,"score_ratio":1.0512820513} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2pefnk","c_root_id_B":"i2prpph","created_at_utc_A":1648642234,"created_at_utc_B":1648648724,"score_A":37,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"When you say he \"should\", you are implying a goal. Why should anyone do anything? To achieve a certain outcome, I would say. In this case, the organization behind The Oscars, their goal is to maximize entertainment. More entertainment, more ratings, more money. Since they are the ones who could take any action, from their perspective they should not have done anything. In fact, this couldn't have been better for them. Society has been nonstop talking about that night, for something they didn't manufacture (allegedly). Your goal of what you want out of that event doesn't align with the people behind the event. They shouldn't have done anything if you consider the utility they are trying to maximize. Edit: To clarify, I am not condoning one person assaulting another. The CMV was on whether Will Smith should've been ejected, not whether The Oscars had a moral obligation to take action (such as ejecting him).","human_ref_B":"Y\u2019all gotta stop pearl clutching. Dude slapped another dude for lame joke. It ain\u2019t that serious. If Chris Rock felt it was assault or it warranted intervention it would have happened. Instead both people move on to greener pastures. Smith gets his Oscar and Rock gets a Netflix special of new material. The only people suffering here are those forced to witness the unending discourse about race relations and Oscar decorum (the latter of which is really pretentious and pointless. We gave an Oscar to Shrek, I don\u2019t think we have to care this much about the sanctity of these awards.) Also they never took these awards away from Weinstein or Polanski despite overwhelming evidence of their crimes, who cares if Smith had a little diva moment. He got a standing ovation for the audience ignoring him not being able to take a joke? Polanski got one for escaping justice for assaulting a teenage girl. We have bigger fish to fry. The real problem here is everyone\u2019s obsession with trivial garbage. None of this matters. Smith shouldn\u2019t give back the Oscar. Rock shouldn\u2019t apologize to anyone. It was a fun moment we should all just laugh off.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6490.0,"score_ratio":1.1351351351} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2prpph","c_root_id_B":"i2p8p7n","created_at_utc_A":1648648724,"created_at_utc_B":1648638713,"score_A":42,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"Y\u2019all gotta stop pearl clutching. Dude slapped another dude for lame joke. It ain\u2019t that serious. If Chris Rock felt it was assault or it warranted intervention it would have happened. Instead both people move on to greener pastures. Smith gets his Oscar and Rock gets a Netflix special of new material. The only people suffering here are those forced to witness the unending discourse about race relations and Oscar decorum (the latter of which is really pretentious and pointless. We gave an Oscar to Shrek, I don\u2019t think we have to care this much about the sanctity of these awards.) Also they never took these awards away from Weinstein or Polanski despite overwhelming evidence of their crimes, who cares if Smith had a little diva moment. He got a standing ovation for the audience ignoring him not being able to take a joke? Polanski got one for escaping justice for assaulting a teenage girl. We have bigger fish to fry. The real problem here is everyone\u2019s obsession with trivial garbage. None of this matters. Smith shouldn\u2019t give back the Oscar. Rock shouldn\u2019t apologize to anyone. It was a fun moment we should all just laugh off.","human_ref_B":"People want to be outraged. Right now they're outraged by a slap with little response. If he were removed, people would be outraged that a black man got forcably removed for a minor slap. The race issue would be much worse PR.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10011.0,"score_ratio":1.0769230769} {"post_id":"ts39rf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. Will Smith should have been ejected from the Oscars immediately and it\u2019s disgraceful that he allowed to go up on stage to accept his Oscar and give a speech. He literally assaulted Chris Rock, in front of the world and nothing happened. I don\u2019t think he should be charged or anything like that unless of course Chris Rock wanted to do so. I get why he was offended and think it was a knee jerk reaction- a weird one, given he was laughing until he saw his wife\u2019s face - but how was he able to go up, accept an Oscar and give a speech after literally running onstage in front of the world and assaulting the shows host. It\u2019s bizzare.","c_root_id_A":"i2pnh1n","c_root_id_B":"i2prpph","created_at_utc_A":1648646826,"created_at_utc_B":1648648724,"score_A":23,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"Three things. Hindsight is 20\/20, group\/mob mentality is overlooked, people act strange while in shock. So yes. In hindsight, it\u2019s very easy to see Will Smith is incorrect, and things should\u2019ve gone down differently. But in the moment, people look to their left and right to determine what their reaction should be. If everyone around them is not reacting, then the individual is less likely to react. You see this all the time in any public event where an applause might happen. \u201cNo one claps\/applauds at first. Then one individual starts it up. Then everyone else follows.\u201d So if that one *ballsy person* does not reject Will\u2019s actions, people are extremely likely to just keep their mouth shut. And further, when an abnormal event happens, and people are \u201cshocked\u201d, they don\u2019t tend to react in a way you might expect. The same way I might say to myself, \u201cIf I see a bear outside my car while I\u2019m leaving for work, I\u2019m going to throw my hands up and yell at it, and stand my ground!\u201d Yet when I\u2019m actually walking to my car, and hear a squirrel break a twig, I freeze, swing my head around, and nearly shit my pants. People just act in ways you wouldn\u2019t expect, \u201cin the moment\u201d.","human_ref_B":"Y\u2019all gotta stop pearl clutching. Dude slapped another dude for lame joke. It ain\u2019t that serious. If Chris Rock felt it was assault or it warranted intervention it would have happened. Instead both people move on to greener pastures. Smith gets his Oscar and Rock gets a Netflix special of new material. The only people suffering here are those forced to witness the unending discourse about race relations and Oscar decorum (the latter of which is really pretentious and pointless. We gave an Oscar to Shrek, I don\u2019t think we have to care this much about the sanctity of these awards.) Also they never took these awards away from Weinstein or Polanski despite overwhelming evidence of their crimes, who cares if Smith had a little diva moment. He got a standing ovation for the audience ignoring him not being able to take a joke? Polanski got one for escaping justice for assaulting a teenage girl. We have bigger fish to fry. The real problem here is everyone\u2019s obsession with trivial garbage. None of this matters. Smith shouldn\u2019t give back the Oscar. Rock shouldn\u2019t apologize to anyone. It was a fun moment we should all just laugh off.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1898.0,"score_ratio":1.8260869565} {"post_id":"lqtno4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There\u2019s nothing wrong with the SNL joke about Israel. It\u2019s certainly not anti-semitic. Michael Che said: \u201cIsrael is reporting that they\u2019ve vaccinated half of their population. I\u2019m going to guess it\u2019s the Jewish half.\u201d This is a population map of the territory the Israeli government controls. More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live there. Jews can move freely throughout this territory, live where they want (except for Gaza) and enjoy full rights as citizens of Israel. Almost all of them have been vaccinated. The picture gets more difficult with the Palestinians. They can be categorized into four groups: Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state\u2019s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice. They\u2019ve been vaccinated at roughly equal pace as Jews living anywhere on territory controlled by Israel. Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire. The vaccine rollout is only now beginning there. Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel\u2019s consent. Israel has begun to provide vaccinations to the 122,000 West Bank Palestinians who work in Israel. Some Palestinians who work in the health care sector have already been vaccinated, but those are a small minority. The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside. A few days ago Israel allowed the first import of vaccines there. The shipment, sent by the Palestinian Authority from the occupied West Bank, included 2,000 doses of Russia\u2019s Sputnik V vaccine, enough to inoculate 1,000 people in a two-shot regimen. In other words: Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population. CMV","c_root_id_A":"goiw3y0","c_root_id_B":"goioyr2","created_at_utc_A":1614124658,"created_at_utc_B":1614121149,"score_A":497,"score_B":199,"human_ref_A":"It's very have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too to say that 'Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA)' and then complain when Israel *doesn't* nullify those powers by taking over Palestinian sovereign duties. It's not hard to imagine the same comics taking a different swipe at Israel had they done what you seem to want Israel to do. I would argue that a joke is a 'problem' when by making a joke you inspire others to believe a lie. Like a push poll question on a survey or a loaded question (when did you stop beating your wife?). If this joke was about any other country in the world, it would be clear who 'their population' referred to. UK? British citizens and nationals. South Korea? South Korean citizens and nationals. You felt you needed five paragraphs to convince us that Michael Che *wasn't* talking about the current Israeli jurisdiction as agreed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Oslo, but the entire British Mandate. Someone with little knowledge of the conflict hears the joke and thinks that Israel is denying medicine based on whether you pray to Mecca. That inspires hate. In actuality Israel is 20-25% Palestinian and that population has equal access to the vaccine. Haifa, Golan, East Jerusalem, wherever. So even if you want to consider the whole British Mandate, it's not a Jewish half. But this whole drama is obscuring a forest for the trees problem. The absolute best way to get Palestinians to refuse to vaccinate is to give them Israeli vaccines. Having the Israeli government vaccinate everyone within its Oslo Accord designated area of responsibility and having the Palestinian government vaccinate everyone with its Oslo Accord designated area of responsibility (and they reportedly have already secured their own supply line through the WHO) is the best way to get as many people vaccinated as possible.","human_ref_B":"Is it anti semitic? Nah. Will anti semites love it? Yeah, definitely. Will it be shared and repeated in the service of anti semitism? Definitely. It's a joke, and people shouldn't be too offended by it. That said, it (and your post) willfully or accidentally ignore many of the facts on the ground in service of a simpler narrative; that's not inherently anti semitic either, but it, too, is popular with anti semites and helps to support their position. I'm not saying you can't criticize Israel, or that you owe it to Israel to know all the facts when you do; most countries aren't afforded that privilege, aside from superpowers. That said, the joke is factually inaccurate and your statements are misleading. Here's why. * The Palestinian National Authority administers public health in areas A and B of the West Bank, pursuant to the Oslo Accords. The 2.8 million Palestinian Arabs in these areas certainly do not believe they are Israelis; it's disingenuous to *say* they're Israelis. Israel controls only area C of the West Bank, which has fewer than 300,000 Arab Palestinians living in it. * The Palestinian National Authority *did not ask for Israeli assistance in acquiring a vaccine*, and stated publically that they were taking that approach in December. You can imagine that \"we want to inject you with an Israeli drug\" might be unpopular as the stance of PNA health officials with their constituents. * Despite this fact, Israel had unilaterally donated vaccines to the PNA two weeks before Michael Che made his joke, which arrived & were administered before the vaccines the PNA had secured. * Vaccines have been available to residents of Jerusalem at equal rates; there is *no* preference being given to Jewish residents. There is a much lower vaccination rate among Arab residents of east Jerusalem because they are skeptical of the vaccine. Here's a news article describing the government's vaccination drive from a week before Che's comments. * Israel is indeed blockading Gaza; that has a significant impact of the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel bears a responsibility for mitigating the humanitarian issues their blockade causes. At the same time, saying that Gazans are Israelis (which would be required for Che's statement to be true) requires you to believe that a blockade confers citizenry, in which case Cubans should have had the right to vote in American elections for fifty years. Bottom line, there's no evidence to support the idea that Israel preferred Jewish residents of Israel to Arab residents of Israel in receiving vaccines, and you can't respect the sovereignty of the Palestinian National Authority without respecting its administrative responsibilities.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3509.0,"score_ratio":2.4974874372} {"post_id":"lqtno4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There\u2019s nothing wrong with the SNL joke about Israel. It\u2019s certainly not anti-semitic. Michael Che said: \u201cIsrael is reporting that they\u2019ve vaccinated half of their population. I\u2019m going to guess it\u2019s the Jewish half.\u201d This is a population map of the territory the Israeli government controls. More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live there. Jews can move freely throughout this territory, live where they want (except for Gaza) and enjoy full rights as citizens of Israel. Almost all of them have been vaccinated. The picture gets more difficult with the Palestinians. They can be categorized into four groups: Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state\u2019s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice. They\u2019ve been vaccinated at roughly equal pace as Jews living anywhere on territory controlled by Israel. Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire. The vaccine rollout is only now beginning there. Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel\u2019s consent. Israel has begun to provide vaccinations to the 122,000 West Bank Palestinians who work in Israel. Some Palestinians who work in the health care sector have already been vaccinated, but those are a small minority. The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside. A few days ago Israel allowed the first import of vaccines there. The shipment, sent by the Palestinian Authority from the occupied West Bank, included 2,000 doses of Russia\u2019s Sputnik V vaccine, enough to inoculate 1,000 people in a two-shot regimen. In other words: Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population. CMV","c_root_id_A":"goinzrl","c_root_id_B":"goiw3y0","created_at_utc_A":1614120683,"created_at_utc_B":1614124658,"score_A":114,"score_B":497,"human_ref_A":"One factor I think you have considered wrong is is sample population that the statistic is referring to. You specifically refer to \"the territory the Israeli government controls\" which on the map includes the Israel and Palestinian Territories, and you list a population of over 14 million. The data from the Israeli health ministry said that 4.5 million Israelis had received their first dose of Covid vaccine, and 3.1 million of those had their second. So I'm sure the \"half of Israelis have gotten the vaccine\" statement was in reference to the 9.2 million population of Israel itself, and does not include the population of the Palestinian Territories. This makes sense on a numbers level (4.5 is about half of 9.2, not even close to half of 14), and from a jurisdiction level (Israeli health ministry does not have jurisdiction over Gaza, Zone A or Zone B of the Palestinian Territories, which total to around 4.5 million people). Of the 9.2 million population of Israel, about 74% is Jewish, so its certainly not antisemitic to say that the majority of Israelis getting the vaccine were Jewish. Because if half of the Israeli population does anything, the majority will be Jewish by definition. Personally I don't think the joke was explicitly antisemitic. It was edgy and intended to be provocative. I think why some people find it objectionable is because it runs tangential to antisemitic tropes of Jewish conspiracies. I don't see that connection especially strong in this case, and personally don't think it crossed the line. Edit because I want to emphasize it: per the Oslo Accords, Israel does not have jurisdiction over education, health, and economy matters in Gaza, Zone A, or Zone B. Therefore it is not within control of the Israel government to vaccinate the approx 4.5 million population of those areas.","human_ref_B":"It's very have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too to say that 'Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA)' and then complain when Israel *doesn't* nullify those powers by taking over Palestinian sovereign duties. It's not hard to imagine the same comics taking a different swipe at Israel had they done what you seem to want Israel to do. I would argue that a joke is a 'problem' when by making a joke you inspire others to believe a lie. Like a push poll question on a survey or a loaded question (when did you stop beating your wife?). If this joke was about any other country in the world, it would be clear who 'their population' referred to. UK? British citizens and nationals. South Korea? South Korean citizens and nationals. You felt you needed five paragraphs to convince us that Michael Che *wasn't* talking about the current Israeli jurisdiction as agreed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Oslo, but the entire British Mandate. Someone with little knowledge of the conflict hears the joke and thinks that Israel is denying medicine based on whether you pray to Mecca. That inspires hate. In actuality Israel is 20-25% Palestinian and that population has equal access to the vaccine. Haifa, Golan, East Jerusalem, wherever. So even if you want to consider the whole British Mandate, it's not a Jewish half. But this whole drama is obscuring a forest for the trees problem. The absolute best way to get Palestinians to refuse to vaccinate is to give them Israeli vaccines. Having the Israeli government vaccinate everyone within its Oslo Accord designated area of responsibility and having the Palestinian government vaccinate everyone with its Oslo Accord designated area of responsibility (and they reportedly have already secured their own supply line through the WHO) is the best way to get as many people vaccinated as possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3975.0,"score_ratio":4.3596491228} {"post_id":"lqtno4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There\u2019s nothing wrong with the SNL joke about Israel. It\u2019s certainly not anti-semitic. Michael Che said: \u201cIsrael is reporting that they\u2019ve vaccinated half of their population. I\u2019m going to guess it\u2019s the Jewish half.\u201d This is a population map of the territory the Israeli government controls. More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live there. Jews can move freely throughout this territory, live where they want (except for Gaza) and enjoy full rights as citizens of Israel. Almost all of them have been vaccinated. The picture gets more difficult with the Palestinians. They can be categorized into four groups: Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state\u2019s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice. They\u2019ve been vaccinated at roughly equal pace as Jews living anywhere on territory controlled by Israel. Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire. The vaccine rollout is only now beginning there. Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel\u2019s consent. Israel has begun to provide vaccinations to the 122,000 West Bank Palestinians who work in Israel. Some Palestinians who work in the health care sector have already been vaccinated, but those are a small minority. The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside. A few days ago Israel allowed the first import of vaccines there. The shipment, sent by the Palestinian Authority from the occupied West Bank, included 2,000 doses of Russia\u2019s Sputnik V vaccine, enough to inoculate 1,000 people in a two-shot regimen. In other words: Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population. CMV","c_root_id_A":"goiw3y0","c_root_id_B":"goipx6j","created_at_utc_A":1614124658,"created_at_utc_B":1614121614,"score_A":497,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"It's very have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too to say that 'Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA)' and then complain when Israel *doesn't* nullify those powers by taking over Palestinian sovereign duties. It's not hard to imagine the same comics taking a different swipe at Israel had they done what you seem to want Israel to do. I would argue that a joke is a 'problem' when by making a joke you inspire others to believe a lie. Like a push poll question on a survey or a loaded question (when did you stop beating your wife?). If this joke was about any other country in the world, it would be clear who 'their population' referred to. UK? British citizens and nationals. South Korea? South Korean citizens and nationals. You felt you needed five paragraphs to convince us that Michael Che *wasn't* talking about the current Israeli jurisdiction as agreed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Oslo, but the entire British Mandate. Someone with little knowledge of the conflict hears the joke and thinks that Israel is denying medicine based on whether you pray to Mecca. That inspires hate. In actuality Israel is 20-25% Palestinian and that population has equal access to the vaccine. Haifa, Golan, East Jerusalem, wherever. So even if you want to consider the whole British Mandate, it's not a Jewish half. But this whole drama is obscuring a forest for the trees problem. The absolute best way to get Palestinians to refuse to vaccinate is to give them Israeli vaccines. Having the Israeli government vaccinate everyone within its Oslo Accord designated area of responsibility and having the Palestinian government vaccinate everyone with its Oslo Accord designated area of responsibility (and they reportedly have already secured their own supply line through the WHO) is the best way to get as many people vaccinated as possible.","human_ref_B":"Israeli citizens are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindi, atheist, etc. Muslim Israelis, Christian Israelis, Hindi Israelis, atheist Israelis, and any other Israeli citizens have equal opportunity to receive a vaccine. Religion is not a barrier to receive a vaccine. That is a fact. It is correct to state that Israel is not administering vaccines to the Palestinians in the Palestinian Territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas at the same rate they\u2019re vaccinating the Israeli citizens, however that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with citizenship. The joke very easily could have been \u201cI\u2019m guessing it wasn\u2019t the Palestinian half\u201d and it would\u2019ve had the same effect, while remaining factually correct. The writers decided to bring Judaism into it, claiming that the Jews were controlling the vaccines and not giving it to the Muslims, Christians, Hindus, atheists, and anyone else with varying religious beliefs, while hoarding it for themselves. That is textbook anti-Semitic and a very dangerous thing to claim, especially on national television where people will hear that joke and think \u201coh those Jews are controlling everything so they only benefit themselves again.\u201d I firmly believe that one can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, but it\u2019s hard to argue that there\u2019s not at least a hint of anti-semitism when Jews get name dropped like they did in this \u201cjoke.\u201d","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3044.0,"score_ratio":10.3541666667} {"post_id":"lqtno4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There\u2019s nothing wrong with the SNL joke about Israel. It\u2019s certainly not anti-semitic. Michael Che said: \u201cIsrael is reporting that they\u2019ve vaccinated half of their population. I\u2019m going to guess it\u2019s the Jewish half.\u201d This is a population map of the territory the Israeli government controls. More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live there. Jews can move freely throughout this territory, live where they want (except for Gaza) and enjoy full rights as citizens of Israel. Almost all of them have been vaccinated. The picture gets more difficult with the Palestinians. They can be categorized into four groups: Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state\u2019s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice. They\u2019ve been vaccinated at roughly equal pace as Jews living anywhere on territory controlled by Israel. Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire. The vaccine rollout is only now beginning there. Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel\u2019s consent. Israel has begun to provide vaccinations to the 122,000 West Bank Palestinians who work in Israel. Some Palestinians who work in the health care sector have already been vaccinated, but those are a small minority. The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside. A few days ago Israel allowed the first import of vaccines there. The shipment, sent by the Palestinian Authority from the occupied West Bank, included 2,000 doses of Russia\u2019s Sputnik V vaccine, enough to inoculate 1,000 people in a two-shot regimen. In other words: Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population. CMV","c_root_id_A":"goiw3y0","c_root_id_B":"goioxph","created_at_utc_A":1614124658,"created_at_utc_B":1614121136,"score_A":497,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"It's very have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too to say that 'Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA)' and then complain when Israel *doesn't* nullify those powers by taking over Palestinian sovereign duties. It's not hard to imagine the same comics taking a different swipe at Israel had they done what you seem to want Israel to do. I would argue that a joke is a 'problem' when by making a joke you inspire others to believe a lie. Like a push poll question on a survey or a loaded question (when did you stop beating your wife?). If this joke was about any other country in the world, it would be clear who 'their population' referred to. UK? British citizens and nationals. South Korea? South Korean citizens and nationals. You felt you needed five paragraphs to convince us that Michael Che *wasn't* talking about the current Israeli jurisdiction as agreed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Oslo, but the entire British Mandate. Someone with little knowledge of the conflict hears the joke and thinks that Israel is denying medicine based on whether you pray to Mecca. That inspires hate. In actuality Israel is 20-25% Palestinian and that population has equal access to the vaccine. Haifa, Golan, East Jerusalem, wherever. So even if you want to consider the whole British Mandate, it's not a Jewish half. But this whole drama is obscuring a forest for the trees problem. The absolute best way to get Palestinians to refuse to vaccinate is to give them Israeli vaccines. Having the Israeli government vaccinate everyone within its Oslo Accord designated area of responsibility and having the Palestinian government vaccinate everyone with its Oslo Accord designated area of responsibility (and they reportedly have already secured their own supply line through the WHO) is the best way to get as many people vaccinated as possible.","human_ref_B":"West Bank and Gaza may be subordinate to Israel, but both territories have their own governments that are fully capable of running their own vaccine drives. Of course Israel is going to prioritize its own citizens before helping out the residents of the territories that it occupies for security reasons. It's very disingenuous to act like the Palestinians are part of Israel's population in the same way that actual Israeli citizens are. From a practical perspective, even if Israel wanted to vaccinate all Palestinians ASAP, the best they could do is hand over the vaccines at the border. It's not like Israeli doctors would be able to march down the streets of Gaza and administer vaccines without incident. The joke is kind of offensive because it perpetuates the narrative that Israel is some diabolical regime that wants all of its minorities to suffer and die. This kind of mindset leads some people to create moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel; the former is actually a genocidal regime, and the latter is doing the best with what it has.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3522.0,"score_ratio":11.5581395349} {"post_id":"lqtno4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There\u2019s nothing wrong with the SNL joke about Israel. It\u2019s certainly not anti-semitic. Michael Che said: \u201cIsrael is reporting that they\u2019ve vaccinated half of their population. I\u2019m going to guess it\u2019s the Jewish half.\u201d This is a population map of the territory the Israeli government controls. More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live there. Jews can move freely throughout this territory, live where they want (except for Gaza) and enjoy full rights as citizens of Israel. Almost all of them have been vaccinated. The picture gets more difficult with the Palestinians. They can be categorized into four groups: Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state\u2019s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice. They\u2019ve been vaccinated at roughly equal pace as Jews living anywhere on territory controlled by Israel. Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire. The vaccine rollout is only now beginning there. Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel\u2019s consent. Israel has begun to provide vaccinations to the 122,000 West Bank Palestinians who work in Israel. Some Palestinians who work in the health care sector have already been vaccinated, but those are a small minority. The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside. A few days ago Israel allowed the first import of vaccines there. The shipment, sent by the Palestinian Authority from the occupied West Bank, included 2,000 doses of Russia\u2019s Sputnik V vaccine, enough to inoculate 1,000 people in a two-shot regimen. In other words: Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population. CMV","c_root_id_A":"goiugnf","c_root_id_B":"goiw3y0","created_at_utc_A":1614123843,"created_at_utc_B":1614124658,"score_A":19,"score_B":497,"human_ref_A":"I don't think the joke was anti-semitic, but given how much analysis you had to do to reach your conclusion, it's pretty reasonable to believe the joke was made in bad taste. Most people have no fucking idea what is going on in Israel aside from the ideological talking points presented to them by various parties on both sides of the issue. The average SNL viewer is not going to understand the nuances of Israeli-Palestinian geopolitics, especially not to the degree required to understand the joke fully. So really what the joke did was split people into categories- 1 - People who get the joke in full detail and know about the reporting that inspired it (the smallest group) 2 - People who will view the joke as anti-semitic 3 - People who will view the joke as confirming their biases against Israel, regardless of how educated they are on the political issues (this is the largest group) So while, again, the joke was not in and of itself anti-semitic, it's a classic case of a comedian not understanding their audience and basing their joke on something most people don't know about. The consequences of the joke, which many will inevitably take literally, will near anti-semitism to a degree the joke wasn't intended to.","human_ref_B":"It's very have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too to say that 'Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA)' and then complain when Israel *doesn't* nullify those powers by taking over Palestinian sovereign duties. It's not hard to imagine the same comics taking a different swipe at Israel had they done what you seem to want Israel to do. I would argue that a joke is a 'problem' when by making a joke you inspire others to believe a lie. Like a push poll question on a survey or a loaded question (when did you stop beating your wife?). If this joke was about any other country in the world, it would be clear who 'their population' referred to. UK? British citizens and nationals. South Korea? South Korean citizens and nationals. You felt you needed five paragraphs to convince us that Michael Che *wasn't* talking about the current Israeli jurisdiction as agreed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Oslo, but the entire British Mandate. Someone with little knowledge of the conflict hears the joke and thinks that Israel is denying medicine based on whether you pray to Mecca. That inspires hate. In actuality Israel is 20-25% Palestinian and that population has equal access to the vaccine. Haifa, Golan, East Jerusalem, wherever. So even if you want to consider the whole British Mandate, it's not a Jewish half. But this whole drama is obscuring a forest for the trees problem. The absolute best way to get Palestinians to refuse to vaccinate is to give them Israeli vaccines. Having the Israeli government vaccinate everyone within its Oslo Accord designated area of responsibility and having the Palestinian government vaccinate everyone with its Oslo Accord designated area of responsibility (and they reportedly have already secured their own supply line through the WHO) is the best way to get as many people vaccinated as possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":815.0,"score_ratio":26.1578947368} {"post_id":"lqtno4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There\u2019s nothing wrong with the SNL joke about Israel. It\u2019s certainly not anti-semitic. Michael Che said: \u201cIsrael is reporting that they\u2019ve vaccinated half of their population. I\u2019m going to guess it\u2019s the Jewish half.\u201d This is a population map of the territory the Israeli government controls. More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live there. Jews can move freely throughout this territory, live where they want (except for Gaza) and enjoy full rights as citizens of Israel. Almost all of them have been vaccinated. The picture gets more difficult with the Palestinians. They can be categorized into four groups: Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state\u2019s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice. They\u2019ve been vaccinated at roughly equal pace as Jews living anywhere on territory controlled by Israel. Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire. The vaccine rollout is only now beginning there. Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel\u2019s consent. Israel has begun to provide vaccinations to the 122,000 West Bank Palestinians who work in Israel. Some Palestinians who work in the health care sector have already been vaccinated, but those are a small minority. The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside. A few days ago Israel allowed the first import of vaccines there. The shipment, sent by the Palestinian Authority from the occupied West Bank, included 2,000 doses of Russia\u2019s Sputnik V vaccine, enough to inoculate 1,000 people in a two-shot regimen. In other words: Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population. CMV","c_root_id_A":"goinzrl","c_root_id_B":"goioyr2","created_at_utc_A":1614120683,"created_at_utc_B":1614121149,"score_A":114,"score_B":199,"human_ref_A":"One factor I think you have considered wrong is is sample population that the statistic is referring to. You specifically refer to \"the territory the Israeli government controls\" which on the map includes the Israel and Palestinian Territories, and you list a population of over 14 million. The data from the Israeli health ministry said that 4.5 million Israelis had received their first dose of Covid vaccine, and 3.1 million of those had their second. So I'm sure the \"half of Israelis have gotten the vaccine\" statement was in reference to the 9.2 million population of Israel itself, and does not include the population of the Palestinian Territories. This makes sense on a numbers level (4.5 is about half of 9.2, not even close to half of 14), and from a jurisdiction level (Israeli health ministry does not have jurisdiction over Gaza, Zone A or Zone B of the Palestinian Territories, which total to around 4.5 million people). Of the 9.2 million population of Israel, about 74% is Jewish, so its certainly not antisemitic to say that the majority of Israelis getting the vaccine were Jewish. Because if half of the Israeli population does anything, the majority will be Jewish by definition. Personally I don't think the joke was explicitly antisemitic. It was edgy and intended to be provocative. I think why some people find it objectionable is because it runs tangential to antisemitic tropes of Jewish conspiracies. I don't see that connection especially strong in this case, and personally don't think it crossed the line. Edit because I want to emphasize it: per the Oslo Accords, Israel does not have jurisdiction over education, health, and economy matters in Gaza, Zone A, or Zone B. Therefore it is not within control of the Israel government to vaccinate the approx 4.5 million population of those areas.","human_ref_B":"Is it anti semitic? Nah. Will anti semites love it? Yeah, definitely. Will it be shared and repeated in the service of anti semitism? Definitely. It's a joke, and people shouldn't be too offended by it. That said, it (and your post) willfully or accidentally ignore many of the facts on the ground in service of a simpler narrative; that's not inherently anti semitic either, but it, too, is popular with anti semites and helps to support their position. I'm not saying you can't criticize Israel, or that you owe it to Israel to know all the facts when you do; most countries aren't afforded that privilege, aside from superpowers. That said, the joke is factually inaccurate and your statements are misleading. Here's why. * The Palestinian National Authority administers public health in areas A and B of the West Bank, pursuant to the Oslo Accords. The 2.8 million Palestinian Arabs in these areas certainly do not believe they are Israelis; it's disingenuous to *say* they're Israelis. Israel controls only area C of the West Bank, which has fewer than 300,000 Arab Palestinians living in it. * The Palestinian National Authority *did not ask for Israeli assistance in acquiring a vaccine*, and stated publically that they were taking that approach in December. You can imagine that \"we want to inject you with an Israeli drug\" might be unpopular as the stance of PNA health officials with their constituents. * Despite this fact, Israel had unilaterally donated vaccines to the PNA two weeks before Michael Che made his joke, which arrived & were administered before the vaccines the PNA had secured. * Vaccines have been available to residents of Jerusalem at equal rates; there is *no* preference being given to Jewish residents. There is a much lower vaccination rate among Arab residents of east Jerusalem because they are skeptical of the vaccine. Here's a news article describing the government's vaccination drive from a week before Che's comments. * Israel is indeed blockading Gaza; that has a significant impact of the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel bears a responsibility for mitigating the humanitarian issues their blockade causes. At the same time, saying that Gazans are Israelis (which would be required for Che's statement to be true) requires you to believe that a blockade confers citizenry, in which case Cubans should have had the right to vote in American elections for fifty years. Bottom line, there's no evidence to support the idea that Israel preferred Jewish residents of Israel to Arab residents of Israel in receiving vaccines, and you can't respect the sovereignty of the Palestinian National Authority without respecting its administrative responsibilities.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":466.0,"score_ratio":1.7456140351} {"post_id":"lqtno4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There\u2019s nothing wrong with the SNL joke about Israel. It\u2019s certainly not anti-semitic. Michael Che said: \u201cIsrael is reporting that they\u2019ve vaccinated half of their population. I\u2019m going to guess it\u2019s the Jewish half.\u201d This is a population map of the territory the Israeli government controls. More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live there. Jews can move freely throughout this territory, live where they want (except for Gaza) and enjoy full rights as citizens of Israel. Almost all of them have been vaccinated. The picture gets more difficult with the Palestinians. They can be categorized into four groups: Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state\u2019s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice. They\u2019ve been vaccinated at roughly equal pace as Jews living anywhere on territory controlled by Israel. Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire. The vaccine rollout is only now beginning there. Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel\u2019s consent. Israel has begun to provide vaccinations to the 122,000 West Bank Palestinians who work in Israel. Some Palestinians who work in the health care sector have already been vaccinated, but those are a small minority. The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside. A few days ago Israel allowed the first import of vaccines there. The shipment, sent by the Palestinian Authority from the occupied West Bank, included 2,000 doses of Russia\u2019s Sputnik V vaccine, enough to inoculate 1,000 people in a two-shot regimen. In other words: Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population. CMV","c_root_id_A":"goioxph","c_root_id_B":"goioyr2","created_at_utc_A":1614121136,"created_at_utc_B":1614121149,"score_A":43,"score_B":199,"human_ref_A":"West Bank and Gaza may be subordinate to Israel, but both territories have their own governments that are fully capable of running their own vaccine drives. Of course Israel is going to prioritize its own citizens before helping out the residents of the territories that it occupies for security reasons. It's very disingenuous to act like the Palestinians are part of Israel's population in the same way that actual Israeli citizens are. From a practical perspective, even if Israel wanted to vaccinate all Palestinians ASAP, the best they could do is hand over the vaccines at the border. It's not like Israeli doctors would be able to march down the streets of Gaza and administer vaccines without incident. The joke is kind of offensive because it perpetuates the narrative that Israel is some diabolical regime that wants all of its minorities to suffer and die. This kind of mindset leads some people to create moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel; the former is actually a genocidal regime, and the latter is doing the best with what it has.","human_ref_B":"Is it anti semitic? Nah. Will anti semites love it? Yeah, definitely. Will it be shared and repeated in the service of anti semitism? Definitely. It's a joke, and people shouldn't be too offended by it. That said, it (and your post) willfully or accidentally ignore many of the facts on the ground in service of a simpler narrative; that's not inherently anti semitic either, but it, too, is popular with anti semites and helps to support their position. I'm not saying you can't criticize Israel, or that you owe it to Israel to know all the facts when you do; most countries aren't afforded that privilege, aside from superpowers. That said, the joke is factually inaccurate and your statements are misleading. Here's why. * The Palestinian National Authority administers public health in areas A and B of the West Bank, pursuant to the Oslo Accords. The 2.8 million Palestinian Arabs in these areas certainly do not believe they are Israelis; it's disingenuous to *say* they're Israelis. Israel controls only area C of the West Bank, which has fewer than 300,000 Arab Palestinians living in it. * The Palestinian National Authority *did not ask for Israeli assistance in acquiring a vaccine*, and stated publically that they were taking that approach in December. You can imagine that \"we want to inject you with an Israeli drug\" might be unpopular as the stance of PNA health officials with their constituents. * Despite this fact, Israel had unilaterally donated vaccines to the PNA two weeks before Michael Che made his joke, which arrived & were administered before the vaccines the PNA had secured. * Vaccines have been available to residents of Jerusalem at equal rates; there is *no* preference being given to Jewish residents. There is a much lower vaccination rate among Arab residents of east Jerusalem because they are skeptical of the vaccine. Here's a news article describing the government's vaccination drive from a week before Che's comments. * Israel is indeed blockading Gaza; that has a significant impact of the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel bears a responsibility for mitigating the humanitarian issues their blockade causes. At the same time, saying that Gazans are Israelis (which would be required for Che's statement to be true) requires you to believe that a blockade confers citizenry, in which case Cubans should have had the right to vote in American elections for fifty years. Bottom line, there's no evidence to support the idea that Israel preferred Jewish residents of Israel to Arab residents of Israel in receiving vaccines, and you can't respect the sovereignty of the Palestinian National Authority without respecting its administrative responsibilities.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13.0,"score_ratio":4.6279069767} {"post_id":"lqtno4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There\u2019s nothing wrong with the SNL joke about Israel. It\u2019s certainly not anti-semitic. Michael Che said: \u201cIsrael is reporting that they\u2019ve vaccinated half of their population. I\u2019m going to guess it\u2019s the Jewish half.\u201d This is a population map of the territory the Israeli government controls. More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live there. Jews can move freely throughout this territory, live where they want (except for Gaza) and enjoy full rights as citizens of Israel. Almost all of them have been vaccinated. The picture gets more difficult with the Palestinians. They can be categorized into four groups: Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state\u2019s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice. They\u2019ve been vaccinated at roughly equal pace as Jews living anywhere on territory controlled by Israel. Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire. The vaccine rollout is only now beginning there. Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel\u2019s consent. Israel has begun to provide vaccinations to the 122,000 West Bank Palestinians who work in Israel. Some Palestinians who work in the health care sector have already been vaccinated, but those are a small minority. The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside. A few days ago Israel allowed the first import of vaccines there. The shipment, sent by the Palestinian Authority from the occupied West Bank, included 2,000 doses of Russia\u2019s Sputnik V vaccine, enough to inoculate 1,000 people in a two-shot regimen. In other words: Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population. CMV","c_root_id_A":"goipx6j","c_root_id_B":"goioxph","created_at_utc_A":1614121614,"created_at_utc_B":1614121136,"score_A":48,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Israeli citizens are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindi, atheist, etc. Muslim Israelis, Christian Israelis, Hindi Israelis, atheist Israelis, and any other Israeli citizens have equal opportunity to receive a vaccine. Religion is not a barrier to receive a vaccine. That is a fact. It is correct to state that Israel is not administering vaccines to the Palestinians in the Palestinian Territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas at the same rate they\u2019re vaccinating the Israeli citizens, however that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with citizenship. The joke very easily could have been \u201cI\u2019m guessing it wasn\u2019t the Palestinian half\u201d and it would\u2019ve had the same effect, while remaining factually correct. The writers decided to bring Judaism into it, claiming that the Jews were controlling the vaccines and not giving it to the Muslims, Christians, Hindus, atheists, and anyone else with varying religious beliefs, while hoarding it for themselves. That is textbook anti-Semitic and a very dangerous thing to claim, especially on national television where people will hear that joke and think \u201coh those Jews are controlling everything so they only benefit themselves again.\u201d I firmly believe that one can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, but it\u2019s hard to argue that there\u2019s not at least a hint of anti-semitism when Jews get name dropped like they did in this \u201cjoke.\u201d","human_ref_B":"West Bank and Gaza may be subordinate to Israel, but both territories have their own governments that are fully capable of running their own vaccine drives. Of course Israel is going to prioritize its own citizens before helping out the residents of the territories that it occupies for security reasons. It's very disingenuous to act like the Palestinians are part of Israel's population in the same way that actual Israeli citizens are. From a practical perspective, even if Israel wanted to vaccinate all Palestinians ASAP, the best they could do is hand over the vaccines at the border. It's not like Israeli doctors would be able to march down the streets of Gaza and administer vaccines without incident. The joke is kind of offensive because it perpetuates the narrative that Israel is some diabolical regime that wants all of its minorities to suffer and die. This kind of mindset leads some people to create moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel; the former is actually a genocidal regime, and the latter is doing the best with what it has.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":478.0,"score_ratio":1.1162790698} {"post_id":"lqtno4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There\u2019s nothing wrong with the SNL joke about Israel. It\u2019s certainly not anti-semitic. Michael Che said: \u201cIsrael is reporting that they\u2019ve vaccinated half of their population. I\u2019m going to guess it\u2019s the Jewish half.\u201d This is a population map of the territory the Israeli government controls. More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live there. Jews can move freely throughout this territory, live where they want (except for Gaza) and enjoy full rights as citizens of Israel. Almost all of them have been vaccinated. The picture gets more difficult with the Palestinians. They can be categorized into four groups: Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state\u2019s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice. They\u2019ve been vaccinated at roughly equal pace as Jews living anywhere on territory controlled by Israel. Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire. The vaccine rollout is only now beginning there. Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel\u2019s consent. Israel has begun to provide vaccinations to the 122,000 West Bank Palestinians who work in Israel. Some Palestinians who work in the health care sector have already been vaccinated, but those are a small minority. The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside. A few days ago Israel allowed the first import of vaccines there. The shipment, sent by the Palestinian Authority from the occupied West Bank, included 2,000 doses of Russia\u2019s Sputnik V vaccine, enough to inoculate 1,000 people in a two-shot regimen. In other words: Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population. CMV","c_root_id_A":"goiugnf","c_root_id_B":"goizwlu","created_at_utc_A":1614123843,"created_at_utc_B":1614126535,"score_A":19,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I don't think the joke was anti-semitic, but given how much analysis you had to do to reach your conclusion, it's pretty reasonable to believe the joke was made in bad taste. Most people have no fucking idea what is going on in Israel aside from the ideological talking points presented to them by various parties on both sides of the issue. The average SNL viewer is not going to understand the nuances of Israeli-Palestinian geopolitics, especially not to the degree required to understand the joke fully. So really what the joke did was split people into categories- 1 - People who get the joke in full detail and know about the reporting that inspired it (the smallest group) 2 - People who will view the joke as anti-semitic 3 - People who will view the joke as confirming their biases against Israel, regardless of how educated they are on the political issues (this is the largest group) So while, again, the joke was not in and of itself anti-semitic, it's a classic case of a comedian not understanding their audience and basing their joke on something most people don't know about. The consequences of the joke, which many will inevitably take literally, will near anti-semitism to a degree the joke wasn't intended to.","human_ref_B":"Israeli here- So i would say it kinda antisemitic, not that big of deal though, Its a joke after all ... Like in many other countries, covid hit weaker communities harder, the arab and hasidic communities here were hit the hardest, and unfortunately, a lot of it is mostly their fault. They were less compliant with the covid restrictions, causing a higher percentage of infections in their communities. As for the vaccines, israel does have a rather decent public health system. And with the help of the military, the logistics were rather successful. Right now, vaccines are available to most israeli citizens. There is a huge battle with misinformation. We also have anti-vaxxers here who spread bullshit. And there are a lot of campaigns urging people to get vaccinated. About 2 weeks ago, they lowered the age criteria, and everybody above 16 can get an appointment for a vaccine. Israeli arabs can get vaccinated just the same. But israeli arabs are just 20% of the population. Unfortunately, the west bank and gaza are seperate entities. They have their own government thats in charge, and its not the israeli government's job to take care of them. There are some talks about giving vaccines to palestinian workers that come to work in israel, but to put it bluntly, we have our own shit to worry about. And the palestinians living in the west bank and gaza are not israeli citizens.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2692.0,"score_ratio":1.1052631579} {"post_id":"lqtno4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: There\u2019s nothing wrong with the SNL joke about Israel. It\u2019s certainly not anti-semitic. Michael Che said: \u201cIsrael is reporting that they\u2019ve vaccinated half of their population. I\u2019m going to guess it\u2019s the Jewish half.\u201d This is a population map of the territory the Israeli government controls. More than 14 million people, roughly half of them Jews and the other half Palestinians, live there. Jews can move freely throughout this territory, live where they want (except for Gaza) and enjoy full rights as citizens of Israel. Almost all of them have been vaccinated. The picture gets more difficult with the Palestinians. They can be categorized into four groups: Palestinians who live on land defined in 1948 as Israeli sovereign territory (sometimes called Arab-Israelis) are Israeli citizens and make up 17% of the state\u2019s citizenry. While this status affords them many rights, they do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens by either law or practice. They\u2019ve been vaccinated at roughly equal pace as Jews living anywhere on territory controlled by Israel. Roughly 350,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, that Israel annexed to its sovereign territory in 1967. They are defined as permanent residents of Israel a status that allows them to live and work in Israel without needing special permits, to receive social benefits and health insurance, and to vote in municipal elections. Yet permanent residency, unlike citizenship, may be revoked at any time, at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In certain circumstances, it can also expire. The vaccine rollout is only now beginning there. Although Israel never formally annexed the West Bank, it treats the territory as its own. More than 2.6 million Palestinian subjects live in the West Bank, in dozens of disconnected enclaves, under rigid military rule and without political rights. In about 40% of the territory, Israel has transferred some civilian powers to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the PA is still subordinate to Israel and can only exercise its limited powers with Israel\u2019s consent. Israel has begun to provide vaccinations to the 122,000 West Bank Palestinians who work in Israel. Some Palestinians who work in the health care sector have already been vaccinated, but those are a small minority. The Gaza Strip is home to about two million Palestinians, also denied political rights. In 2005, Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip, dismantled the settlements it built there and abdicated any responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian population. After the Hamas takeover in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip that is still in place. Throughout all of these years, Israel has continued to control nearly every aspect of life in Gaza from outside. A few days ago Israel allowed the first import of vaccines there. The shipment, sent by the Palestinian Authority from the occupied West Bank, included 2,000 doses of Russia\u2019s Sputnik V vaccine, enough to inoculate 1,000 people in a two-shot regimen. In other words: Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population. CMV","c_root_id_A":"goiz28f","c_root_id_B":"goizwlu","created_at_utc_A":1614126119,"created_at_utc_B":1614126535,"score_A":16,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I'm gonna be nitpicky here, sorry, and try to argue that the joke can't \"certainly\" be ruled out as antisemitic, at least not by the argument you have laid out. I personally think there is a little bit of nuance missing here, but for now let's take for granted your point that \"Israel has been vaccinating the Jewish half of its population.\" It seems like the logical step you use is that since the above statement is true, the joke is not antisemitic, but I think it's fairly easy to show that step is invalid. Suppose I spent all day ranting technical truths about influential Jews in the media, or the wealth of Soros or Rothschild, and so on. Of course it's still possible for us to conclude that the joke isn't antisemitic, but it requires deeper analysis. Does intentionality matter (is a statement racist if a POC feels attacked by it, even if that was not the intention of the speaker)? Is it reasonable that Jews would feel singled out unfairly by the joke? Is is possible the joke will incite antisemitism? Does it enforce stereotypes people may have about Jews? Can I at least convince you that these points matter, so without addressing them it's not fair to assert that the joke is \"certainly\" not antisemitic?","human_ref_B":"Israeli here- So i would say it kinda antisemitic, not that big of deal though, Its a joke after all ... Like in many other countries, covid hit weaker communities harder, the arab and hasidic communities here were hit the hardest, and unfortunately, a lot of it is mostly their fault. They were less compliant with the covid restrictions, causing a higher percentage of infections in their communities. As for the vaccines, israel does have a rather decent public health system. And with the help of the military, the logistics were rather successful. Right now, vaccines are available to most israeli citizens. There is a huge battle with misinformation. We also have anti-vaxxers here who spread bullshit. And there are a lot of campaigns urging people to get vaccinated. About 2 weeks ago, they lowered the age criteria, and everybody above 16 can get an appointment for a vaccine. Israeli arabs can get vaccinated just the same. But israeli arabs are just 20% of the population. Unfortunately, the west bank and gaza are seperate entities. They have their own government thats in charge, and its not the israeli government's job to take care of them. There are some talks about giving vaccines to palestinian workers that come to work in israel, but to put it bluntly, we have our own shit to worry about. And the palestinians living in the west bank and gaza are not israeli citizens.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":416.0,"score_ratio":1.3125} {"post_id":"hn60yv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"CMV: having no burnt popcorn is more important than popping all kernels I used to work at a cinema and they use pretty expensive machines that can do both, but even then, every once in a while someone would burn popcorn and you would literally have to put the burnt popcorn in a trash bag and walk it out of the building. It's not ridiculous either - burnt popcorn is not appetizing and adversely affected concession sales that a movie theater depends on. All of this is to say, my wife will complain that I take the popcorn out too early (8 seconds left on the popcorn function on a microwave we tested for making popcorn) and she doesn't like sifting through kernels, but my opinion on this is: 1. You're probably not going to take the trash bag you throw the burnt popcorn into out of the house so the smell lingers. 2. The kernels filter to the bottom, so you don't really have a problem separating them while eating. 3. There's more butter for less popcorn which is better anyway. The absolute worse outcome is that 98% of the popcorn is properly cooked and 2% is burnt and she'll eat around the burnt popcorn, so you can't escape the smell because it wasn't even thrown away. It's like playing Russian roulette with disgusting food that sometimes isn't disgusting. For these reasons, I think the most important part of popping popcorn is not burning the popcorn while my wife disagrees. If there are some arguments I haven't thought of I'd love to hear them because I'm at a complete loss for this rationality. Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"fx9ev8d","c_root_id_B":"fx9l5si","created_at_utc_A":1594166430,"created_at_utc_B":1594170100,"score_A":25,"score_B":468,"human_ref_A":"At the movie-theater level I completely agree with you. You're working with such a volume of kernels that some going un-popped is no significant loss, and customers are paying a premium for the corn, so burnt product is unacceptable. At home, the argument falls apart. You're dealing with small quantities of popcorn meaning you want to pop as much as possible. You might not have another bag on hand. You didn't pay top dollar for the corn so the occasional burnt kernel is acceptable. You're also dealing with consumer grade equipment, so burning kernels is inevitable. I think applying your cinema business practices to your living room is a bridge too far. If you really care that much about your gourmet popcorn, get an air popper and good quality kernels, and don't touch the microwave to begin with.","human_ref_B":"Unpopped kernels are a dental hazard. Every year many people break a tooth chomping down on one. Definitely worth keeping in mind as you get older and your teeth brittler. A good solution is to replace the microwave with the stove. The one advantage the microwave has going for it is a small bit of extra convenience. But microwaves too easily cause burning because they indiscriminately shoot their energy into popped and unpopped corns alike. Whereas, on the stove, the popped corns rise to the top, above the uncooked kernels and away from the heat. Plus, you can open the popper midway through cooking\u2014whether by lifting the lid if using an ordinary pot or opening the door if using a special popcorn-popping pot\u2014and let out the steam that causes further overcooking of the popped corns. Additional benefits of stove-top popcorn: * Make the exact portion size you want. * Use exactly the amount and type of oil you want. * Add exactly the ingredients you want. Spicy popcorn, sugary popcorn, cheesy popcorn, etc. * Burned corns aren't as offensive as with microwaving. Almost kinda taste good, like crispy bacon. * Cheaper to operate long-term.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3670.0,"score_ratio":18.72} {"post_id":"hn60yv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"CMV: having no burnt popcorn is more important than popping all kernels I used to work at a cinema and they use pretty expensive machines that can do both, but even then, every once in a while someone would burn popcorn and you would literally have to put the burnt popcorn in a trash bag and walk it out of the building. It's not ridiculous either - burnt popcorn is not appetizing and adversely affected concession sales that a movie theater depends on. All of this is to say, my wife will complain that I take the popcorn out too early (8 seconds left on the popcorn function on a microwave we tested for making popcorn) and she doesn't like sifting through kernels, but my opinion on this is: 1. You're probably not going to take the trash bag you throw the burnt popcorn into out of the house so the smell lingers. 2. The kernels filter to the bottom, so you don't really have a problem separating them while eating. 3. There's more butter for less popcorn which is better anyway. The absolute worse outcome is that 98% of the popcorn is properly cooked and 2% is burnt and she'll eat around the burnt popcorn, so you can't escape the smell because it wasn't even thrown away. It's like playing Russian roulette with disgusting food that sometimes isn't disgusting. For these reasons, I think the most important part of popping popcorn is not burning the popcorn while my wife disagrees. If there are some arguments I haven't thought of I'd love to hear them because I'm at a complete loss for this rationality. Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"fxaxcb8","c_root_id_B":"fxac4qo","created_at_utc_A":1594208125,"created_at_utc_B":1594187942,"score_A":15,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Despite my age and the fact that my teeth are getting brittle, I cannot lie: I LOVE partially popped and mildly burnt popcorn. As far as a CMV response, this one sucks. I'm not trying to change your view because \"taste, like beauty, is in the eye (or sense) of the beholder\". But I am a lover of toasted things, from bread to nuts","human_ref_B":"False dichotomy. Stop microwaving popcorn. Pop popcorn in a pot and all your kernels will pop, and none will burn.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20183.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"hn60yv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"CMV: having no burnt popcorn is more important than popping all kernels I used to work at a cinema and they use pretty expensive machines that can do both, but even then, every once in a while someone would burn popcorn and you would literally have to put the burnt popcorn in a trash bag and walk it out of the building. It's not ridiculous either - burnt popcorn is not appetizing and adversely affected concession sales that a movie theater depends on. All of this is to say, my wife will complain that I take the popcorn out too early (8 seconds left on the popcorn function on a microwave we tested for making popcorn) and she doesn't like sifting through kernels, but my opinion on this is: 1. You're probably not going to take the trash bag you throw the burnt popcorn into out of the house so the smell lingers. 2. The kernels filter to the bottom, so you don't really have a problem separating them while eating. 3. There's more butter for less popcorn which is better anyway. The absolute worse outcome is that 98% of the popcorn is properly cooked and 2% is burnt and she'll eat around the burnt popcorn, so you can't escape the smell because it wasn't even thrown away. It's like playing Russian roulette with disgusting food that sometimes isn't disgusting. For these reasons, I think the most important part of popping popcorn is not burning the popcorn while my wife disagrees. If there are some arguments I haven't thought of I'd love to hear them because I'm at a complete loss for this rationality. Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"fxax5gc","c_root_id_B":"fxaxcb8","created_at_utc_A":1594207967,"created_at_utc_B":1594208125,"score_A":4,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"\\- Buy kernals in bulk \\- Put a little olive oil, salt, and enough kernals to cover the bottom of a pot \\- Put the pot on the stove and heat. Shake every once in awhile \\- When the popcorn stops popping take the pot off the heat \\- Add some more olive oil and salt (if you are feeling spicy add pepper, paprika, rosemary, ex) \\- Perfectly popped popcorn. I've never burned a corn once. \\- (Bonus) If you have some extra popcorn after popping then you should take the rest and **freeze** it in a Tupperware. It sounds a bit crazy, but the popcorn keeps so nice and crunchy in the freezer. Sometimes I crave frozen popcorn over regular warm pop corn.","human_ref_B":"Despite my age and the fact that my teeth are getting brittle, I cannot lie: I LOVE partially popped and mildly burnt popcorn. As far as a CMV response, this one sucks. I'm not trying to change your view because \"taste, like beauty, is in the eye (or sense) of the beholder\". But I am a lover of toasted things, from bread to nuts","labels":0,"seconds_difference":158.0,"score_ratio":3.75} {"post_id":"hn60yv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"CMV: having no burnt popcorn is more important than popping all kernels I used to work at a cinema and they use pretty expensive machines that can do both, but even then, every once in a while someone would burn popcorn and you would literally have to put the burnt popcorn in a trash bag and walk it out of the building. It's not ridiculous either - burnt popcorn is not appetizing and adversely affected concession sales that a movie theater depends on. All of this is to say, my wife will complain that I take the popcorn out too early (8 seconds left on the popcorn function on a microwave we tested for making popcorn) and she doesn't like sifting through kernels, but my opinion on this is: 1. You're probably not going to take the trash bag you throw the burnt popcorn into out of the house so the smell lingers. 2. The kernels filter to the bottom, so you don't really have a problem separating them while eating. 3. There's more butter for less popcorn which is better anyway. The absolute worse outcome is that 98% of the popcorn is properly cooked and 2% is burnt and she'll eat around the burnt popcorn, so you can't escape the smell because it wasn't even thrown away. It's like playing Russian roulette with disgusting food that sometimes isn't disgusting. For these reasons, I think the most important part of popping popcorn is not burning the popcorn while my wife disagrees. If there are some arguments I haven't thought of I'd love to hear them because I'm at a complete loss for this rationality. Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"fxad5y9","c_root_id_B":"fxaxcb8","created_at_utc_A":1594188831,"created_at_utc_B":1594208125,"score_A":2,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Usually giving the bag a good shaking *immediately* after taking it out of the microwave pops the last couple kernels for me.","human_ref_B":"Despite my age and the fact that my teeth are getting brittle, I cannot lie: I LOVE partially popped and mildly burnt popcorn. As far as a CMV response, this one sucks. I'm not trying to change your view because \"taste, like beauty, is in the eye (or sense) of the beholder\". But I am a lover of toasted things, from bread to nuts","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19294.0,"score_ratio":7.5} {"post_id":"hn60yv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"CMV: having no burnt popcorn is more important than popping all kernels I used to work at a cinema and they use pretty expensive machines that can do both, but even then, every once in a while someone would burn popcorn and you would literally have to put the burnt popcorn in a trash bag and walk it out of the building. It's not ridiculous either - burnt popcorn is not appetizing and adversely affected concession sales that a movie theater depends on. All of this is to say, my wife will complain that I take the popcorn out too early (8 seconds left on the popcorn function on a microwave we tested for making popcorn) and she doesn't like sifting through kernels, but my opinion on this is: 1. You're probably not going to take the trash bag you throw the burnt popcorn into out of the house so the smell lingers. 2. The kernels filter to the bottom, so you don't really have a problem separating them while eating. 3. There's more butter for less popcorn which is better anyway. The absolute worse outcome is that 98% of the popcorn is properly cooked and 2% is burnt and she'll eat around the burnt popcorn, so you can't escape the smell because it wasn't even thrown away. It's like playing Russian roulette with disgusting food that sometimes isn't disgusting. For these reasons, I think the most important part of popping popcorn is not burning the popcorn while my wife disagrees. If there are some arguments I haven't thought of I'd love to hear them because I'm at a complete loss for this rationality. Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"fxax5gc","c_root_id_B":"fxbm991","created_at_utc_A":1594207967,"created_at_utc_B":1594222886,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"\\- Buy kernals in bulk \\- Put a little olive oil, salt, and enough kernals to cover the bottom of a pot \\- Put the pot on the stove and heat. Shake every once in awhile \\- When the popcorn stops popping take the pot off the heat \\- Add some more olive oil and salt (if you are feeling spicy add pepper, paprika, rosemary, ex) \\- Perfectly popped popcorn. I've never burned a corn once. \\- (Bonus) If you have some extra popcorn after popping then you should take the rest and **freeze** it in a Tupperware. It sounds a bit crazy, but the popcorn keeps so nice and crunchy in the freezer. Sometimes I crave frozen popcorn over regular warm pop corn.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019ve framed this as a disagreement between you and your wife regarding when to stop the microwave. I\u2019d like to provide an alternative solution that may or may not change your views: Shake the bag up and spread the kernels around more evenly before you start the microwave. They\u2019ll heat much more evenly which results in fewer left over kernels.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14919.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"hn60yv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"CMV: having no burnt popcorn is more important than popping all kernels I used to work at a cinema and they use pretty expensive machines that can do both, but even then, every once in a while someone would burn popcorn and you would literally have to put the burnt popcorn in a trash bag and walk it out of the building. It's not ridiculous either - burnt popcorn is not appetizing and adversely affected concession sales that a movie theater depends on. All of this is to say, my wife will complain that I take the popcorn out too early (8 seconds left on the popcorn function on a microwave we tested for making popcorn) and she doesn't like sifting through kernels, but my opinion on this is: 1. You're probably not going to take the trash bag you throw the burnt popcorn into out of the house so the smell lingers. 2. The kernels filter to the bottom, so you don't really have a problem separating them while eating. 3. There's more butter for less popcorn which is better anyway. The absolute worse outcome is that 98% of the popcorn is properly cooked and 2% is burnt and she'll eat around the burnt popcorn, so you can't escape the smell because it wasn't even thrown away. It's like playing Russian roulette with disgusting food that sometimes isn't disgusting. For these reasons, I think the most important part of popping popcorn is not burning the popcorn while my wife disagrees. If there are some arguments I haven't thought of I'd love to hear them because I'm at a complete loss for this rationality. Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"fxad5y9","c_root_id_B":"fxbm991","created_at_utc_A":1594188831,"created_at_utc_B":1594222886,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Usually giving the bag a good shaking *immediately* after taking it out of the microwave pops the last couple kernels for me.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019ve framed this as a disagreement between you and your wife regarding when to stop the microwave. I\u2019d like to provide an alternative solution that may or may not change your views: Shake the bag up and spread the kernels around more evenly before you start the microwave. They\u2019ll heat much more evenly which results in fewer left over kernels.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34055.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"hn60yv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"CMV: having no burnt popcorn is more important than popping all kernels I used to work at a cinema and they use pretty expensive machines that can do both, but even then, every once in a while someone would burn popcorn and you would literally have to put the burnt popcorn in a trash bag and walk it out of the building. It's not ridiculous either - burnt popcorn is not appetizing and adversely affected concession sales that a movie theater depends on. All of this is to say, my wife will complain that I take the popcorn out too early (8 seconds left on the popcorn function on a microwave we tested for making popcorn) and she doesn't like sifting through kernels, but my opinion on this is: 1. You're probably not going to take the trash bag you throw the burnt popcorn into out of the house so the smell lingers. 2. The kernels filter to the bottom, so you don't really have a problem separating them while eating. 3. There's more butter for less popcorn which is better anyway. The absolute worse outcome is that 98% of the popcorn is properly cooked and 2% is burnt and she'll eat around the burnt popcorn, so you can't escape the smell because it wasn't even thrown away. It's like playing Russian roulette with disgusting food that sometimes isn't disgusting. For these reasons, I think the most important part of popping popcorn is not burning the popcorn while my wife disagrees. If there are some arguments I haven't thought of I'd love to hear them because I'm at a complete loss for this rationality. Please change my view.","c_root_id_A":"fxad5y9","c_root_id_B":"fxax5gc","created_at_utc_A":1594188831,"created_at_utc_B":1594207967,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Usually giving the bag a good shaking *immediately* after taking it out of the microwave pops the last couple kernels for me.","human_ref_B":"\\- Buy kernals in bulk \\- Put a little olive oil, salt, and enough kernals to cover the bottom of a pot \\- Put the pot on the stove and heat. Shake every once in awhile \\- When the popcorn stops popping take the pot off the heat \\- Add some more olive oil and salt (if you are feeling spicy add pepper, paprika, rosemary, ex) \\- Perfectly popped popcorn. I've never burned a corn once. \\- (Bonus) If you have some extra popcorn after popping then you should take the rest and **freeze** it in a Tupperware. It sounds a bit crazy, but the popcorn keeps so nice and crunchy in the freezer. Sometimes I crave frozen popcorn over regular warm pop corn.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19136.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"9rk89i","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: All classified govt material should be unclassified after 100 years I believe that transparency is a hugely important thing for the govt of a civil society. One of the things that protects bad actors is the ability to hide their misdeeds from the public. Different justifications are used - most along the lines of \"national security\". But I believe the knowledge that 50 or 75 years after their death, the legacy of officials might be marred by corrupt or illegal acts being revealed would cause more bad behavior to be avoided than \"good\" (but necessary?) behavior might be discouraged. So I believe that **ALL** classified, confidential, top-secret, etc (regardless of whatever of level of secrecy) material should be declassified once it becomes 100 years old. Most people I've said this to tend to agree with me. There are only three arguments I've heard that even try to argue against it: 1. That the grandchildren of an award winning hero may be traumatized to learn that it was actually a cover and their ancestor actually died due to friendly fire, a procedural error, or some other less-than-honorable manner. 2. That knowing that history would eventually see all their deeds would cause officials to make \"safe\" or \"nice\" or \"passive\" decisions when sometimes \"dangerous\" or \"mean\" or \"aggressive\" actions are absolutely necessary. 3. That learning of some horrific act done 100 years ago by completely different people and a completely different govt would *still* inspire acts of violent retaliation by individuals or even state actors today. What will NOT change my mind: - 1 is entirely unconvincing to me. While I would feel sympathy for someone learning that a powerful motivating family narrative was a fabrication to cover something ... dirty ... I still think declassifying everything after 100 years is of much greater benefit to society than that cost. - Examples of public officials choosing, due to contemporary public pressure, a \"passive\" decision rather than a \"aggressive\" decision resulting in negative consequences Ways to change my mind: - Demonstrate with historical examples how #2 or #3 has happened with significant negative consequence - Provide me with a different, convincing argument - demonstrating negative consequences from exposure of 100 year old classified material - apart from those I've listed above","c_root_id_A":"e8hny4f","c_root_id_B":"e8hn0mb","created_at_utc_A":1540563906,"created_at_utc_B":1540563062,"score_A":127,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Following your proposal we'd now have open access to anything prior to 1918. Now, I'm not an expert to what extent those things are already publicly available but this would mean that people had - without restriction - ability to look at production methods and - arguably more importantly - 1st hand studies (by the involved militaries) on the effectiveness of chemical weapons in World War 1 and presumably guides how to use them most effectively. In 21 years the complete declassification of materials from the Manhattan project would start. Now, we know a fair amount about those things from the Rosenbergs' trial but we also *don't know* a lot of things. So in ~25 years we'd get the full declassification of things like the design of high-explosive lenses for nukes and the trigger mechanisms used. In around 30 years we get full designs of thermonuclear weapons and miniaturization processes for them, regular nukes as well as more efficient enrichment methods. Thats still a bit further away but eventually as materials in regards to how countries like South Africa or Israel were able to acquire nuclear in secret and with limited economic means would become de-classified. Yes, these things are edge cases of what governments have data on but if you make an absolute case they become relevant in that such data could inadvertently provide bad actors (primarily autocratic regimes I'd say) with instructions how to maximize their destructive abilities.","human_ref_B":"As a general global statement I understand this view. However, if the atrocities were bad enough a nations involvement could still be damaging to their current foreign policy. The Nanking Massacre was almost 100 years ago, if I were in charge of a Nation and found out we had a major role in that there is no way I would want it released, as it would hurt out current foreign policy. Even Japan releasing the documents, would harm thier relationship with the person who helped. That is also a harm you missed. If you release documents that implicate an ally, then they may get upset.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":844.0,"score_ratio":12.7} {"post_id":"9rk89i","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: All classified govt material should be unclassified after 100 years I believe that transparency is a hugely important thing for the govt of a civil society. One of the things that protects bad actors is the ability to hide their misdeeds from the public. Different justifications are used - most along the lines of \"national security\". But I believe the knowledge that 50 or 75 years after their death, the legacy of officials might be marred by corrupt or illegal acts being revealed would cause more bad behavior to be avoided than \"good\" (but necessary?) behavior might be discouraged. So I believe that **ALL** classified, confidential, top-secret, etc (regardless of whatever of level of secrecy) material should be declassified once it becomes 100 years old. Most people I've said this to tend to agree with me. There are only three arguments I've heard that even try to argue against it: 1. That the grandchildren of an award winning hero may be traumatized to learn that it was actually a cover and their ancestor actually died due to friendly fire, a procedural error, or some other less-than-honorable manner. 2. That knowing that history would eventually see all their deeds would cause officials to make \"safe\" or \"nice\" or \"passive\" decisions when sometimes \"dangerous\" or \"mean\" or \"aggressive\" actions are absolutely necessary. 3. That learning of some horrific act done 100 years ago by completely different people and a completely different govt would *still* inspire acts of violent retaliation by individuals or even state actors today. What will NOT change my mind: - 1 is entirely unconvincing to me. While I would feel sympathy for someone learning that a powerful motivating family narrative was a fabrication to cover something ... dirty ... I still think declassifying everything after 100 years is of much greater benefit to society than that cost. - Examples of public officials choosing, due to contemporary public pressure, a \"passive\" decision rather than a \"aggressive\" decision resulting in negative consequences Ways to change my mind: - Demonstrate with historical examples how #2 or #3 has happened with significant negative consequence - Provide me with a different, convincing argument - demonstrating negative consequences from exposure of 100 year old classified material - apart from those I've listed above","c_root_id_A":"e8hn0mb","c_root_id_B":"e8ho7ik","created_at_utc_A":1540563062,"created_at_utc_B":1540564137,"score_A":10,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"As a general global statement I understand this view. However, if the atrocities were bad enough a nations involvement could still be damaging to their current foreign policy. The Nanking Massacre was almost 100 years ago, if I were in charge of a Nation and found out we had a major role in that there is no way I would want it released, as it would hurt out current foreign policy. Even Japan releasing the documents, would harm thier relationship with the person who helped. That is also a harm you missed. If you release documents that implicate an ally, then they may get upset.","human_ref_B":"Number 3. Ireland, the Balkans, and pretty much the entire middle East for example have seething hatreds that go back well over 100 years. Imperial Japan has a lot of dirt that is approaching 100 years old that Korea, China, and others are still very bitter about. Details of some atrocities from a century ago can very easily be used as a rallying cry for escalating these issues into renewed conflict. On top of that you have no way to ensure the other side releases accurate records, so the declassification can paint you in a very different light than an actual objective look at the historical context.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1075.0,"score_ratio":3.9} {"post_id":"9rk89i","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: All classified govt material should be unclassified after 100 years I believe that transparency is a hugely important thing for the govt of a civil society. One of the things that protects bad actors is the ability to hide their misdeeds from the public. Different justifications are used - most along the lines of \"national security\". But I believe the knowledge that 50 or 75 years after their death, the legacy of officials might be marred by corrupt or illegal acts being revealed would cause more bad behavior to be avoided than \"good\" (but necessary?) behavior might be discouraged. So I believe that **ALL** classified, confidential, top-secret, etc (regardless of whatever of level of secrecy) material should be declassified once it becomes 100 years old. Most people I've said this to tend to agree with me. There are only three arguments I've heard that even try to argue against it: 1. That the grandchildren of an award winning hero may be traumatized to learn that it was actually a cover and their ancestor actually died due to friendly fire, a procedural error, or some other less-than-honorable manner. 2. That knowing that history would eventually see all their deeds would cause officials to make \"safe\" or \"nice\" or \"passive\" decisions when sometimes \"dangerous\" or \"mean\" or \"aggressive\" actions are absolutely necessary. 3. That learning of some horrific act done 100 years ago by completely different people and a completely different govt would *still* inspire acts of violent retaliation by individuals or even state actors today. What will NOT change my mind: - 1 is entirely unconvincing to me. While I would feel sympathy for someone learning that a powerful motivating family narrative was a fabrication to cover something ... dirty ... I still think declassifying everything after 100 years is of much greater benefit to society than that cost. - Examples of public officials choosing, due to contemporary public pressure, a \"passive\" decision rather than a \"aggressive\" decision resulting in negative consequences Ways to change my mind: - Demonstrate with historical examples how #2 or #3 has happened with significant negative consequence - Provide me with a different, convincing argument - demonstrating negative consequences from exposure of 100 year old classified material - apart from those I've listed above","c_root_id_A":"e8hn0mb","c_root_id_B":"e8i5otn","created_at_utc_A":1540563062,"created_at_utc_B":1540578501,"score_A":10,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"As a general global statement I understand this view. However, if the atrocities were bad enough a nations involvement could still be damaging to their current foreign policy. The Nanking Massacre was almost 100 years ago, if I were in charge of a Nation and found out we had a major role in that there is no way I would want it released, as it would hurt out current foreign policy. Even Japan releasing the documents, would harm thier relationship with the person who helped. That is also a harm you missed. If you release documents that implicate an ally, then they may get upset.","human_ref_B":"A bunch of people have said nuclear bombs, but what about nuclear waste disposal sites? Or other similarly dangerous sites that might invite public interest just by way of the public knowing anything whatsoever about them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15439.0,"score_ratio":2.8} {"post_id":"9rk89i","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: All classified govt material should be unclassified after 100 years I believe that transparency is a hugely important thing for the govt of a civil society. One of the things that protects bad actors is the ability to hide their misdeeds from the public. Different justifications are used - most along the lines of \"national security\". But I believe the knowledge that 50 or 75 years after their death, the legacy of officials might be marred by corrupt or illegal acts being revealed would cause more bad behavior to be avoided than \"good\" (but necessary?) behavior might be discouraged. So I believe that **ALL** classified, confidential, top-secret, etc (regardless of whatever of level of secrecy) material should be declassified once it becomes 100 years old. Most people I've said this to tend to agree with me. There are only three arguments I've heard that even try to argue against it: 1. That the grandchildren of an award winning hero may be traumatized to learn that it was actually a cover and their ancestor actually died due to friendly fire, a procedural error, or some other less-than-honorable manner. 2. That knowing that history would eventually see all their deeds would cause officials to make \"safe\" or \"nice\" or \"passive\" decisions when sometimes \"dangerous\" or \"mean\" or \"aggressive\" actions are absolutely necessary. 3. That learning of some horrific act done 100 years ago by completely different people and a completely different govt would *still* inspire acts of violent retaliation by individuals or even state actors today. What will NOT change my mind: - 1 is entirely unconvincing to me. While I would feel sympathy for someone learning that a powerful motivating family narrative was a fabrication to cover something ... dirty ... I still think declassifying everything after 100 years is of much greater benefit to society than that cost. - Examples of public officials choosing, due to contemporary public pressure, a \"passive\" decision rather than a \"aggressive\" decision resulting in negative consequences Ways to change my mind: - Demonstrate with historical examples how #2 or #3 has happened with significant negative consequence - Provide me with a different, convincing argument - demonstrating negative consequences from exposure of 100 year old classified material - apart from those I've listed above","c_root_id_A":"e8hn0mb","c_root_id_B":"e8i8agm","created_at_utc_A":1540563062,"created_at_utc_B":1540580655,"score_A":10,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"As a general global statement I understand this view. However, if the atrocities were bad enough a nations involvement could still be damaging to their current foreign policy. The Nanking Massacre was almost 100 years ago, if I were in charge of a Nation and found out we had a major role in that there is no way I would want it released, as it would hurt out current foreign policy. Even Japan releasing the documents, would harm thier relationship with the person who helped. That is also a harm you missed. If you release documents that implicate an ally, then they may get upset.","human_ref_B":"I will provide you with evidence that 100 year old classified information will soon be extremely destructive. Lets talk about something practical. Aum Shinrikyo tried to build weapons of mass destruction. [People have investigated what they did and how they did it from a technical and scientific point of view] (https:\/\/s3.amazonaws.com\/files.cnas.org\/documents\/CNAS_AumShinrikyo_SecondEdition_English.pdf?mtime=20160906080510). They were nutjobs, but it's an amazing opportunity to see what a well-educated well-funded group can do with only generic background knowledge. The paper is a fascinating read about how they developed their program, both for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (they also tried crazy scifi stuff like beam or plasma weapons, whatever those are; they failed at nuclear weapons completely for many unrelated reasons). In particular, it highlights what they failed at. They failed because they didn't have engineering knowledge, they only had vague but competent theoretical knowledge. For example, they knew the formula for Sarin, but they didn't know the practical chemical engineering that goes into making Sarin. This is exactly the kind of detail that is classified. Yes, you can make a few grams of Sarin in a lab, but learning the practical tricks of the trade about how to make tons of the stuff without killing yourself, that takes a huge amounts of time and it's very dangerous. That's classified. By about 1940 these techniques were well worked out and by 1950 they were a completely industrialized process. These details are very exacting: what is the composition of the vessels at different stages of the reaction, what temperature should things be hated to, what concentrations are ok, what can you measure to verify purity, etc. They're very tiny details that add up to not being able to manufacture this stuff at scale easily. Figuring out these details is very hard, very dangerous, and takes a long time. When you get a detail wrong without a guide you generally have no good idea what happened. Once someone tells you what these details are, things are infinitely easier. You also have to be clever to figure them out but of average ability to just make use of them. Do you want these nutjobs to have access to this? The report clearly makes the case that they had the funding and the ability to kill many tends of thousands. They just didn't have the howto guide about how to do the practical engineering. Same story for biological weapons, they had a Russian paper describing what should happen, but they didn't have all of the classified details about how these things should happen. Engineering details come into play in all sorts of aspects of the operation. One of the big failures they had is in distributing Sarin. That's why they showed up on trains with shopping bags. They didn't have access to all of the aerosol research the US and Russia (and others) have done on Sarin and how to get it into people at concentration to kill. They built a lot of clumsy distribution mechanisms (one that almost burned the team alive in a van). Had this been 30 years later, and had they had access to all of the 100 year old declassified engineering details, they would have killed an unfathomable number of people. Even with their horrible leadership disfunctions. Just because knowledge is old, doesn't mean it's not dangerous. These details will be as potent and dangerous 200 years from now as they are today.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17593.0,"score_ratio":2.1} {"post_id":"9rk89i","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: All classified govt material should be unclassified after 100 years I believe that transparency is a hugely important thing for the govt of a civil society. One of the things that protects bad actors is the ability to hide their misdeeds from the public. Different justifications are used - most along the lines of \"national security\". But I believe the knowledge that 50 or 75 years after their death, the legacy of officials might be marred by corrupt or illegal acts being revealed would cause more bad behavior to be avoided than \"good\" (but necessary?) behavior might be discouraged. So I believe that **ALL** classified, confidential, top-secret, etc (regardless of whatever of level of secrecy) material should be declassified once it becomes 100 years old. Most people I've said this to tend to agree with me. There are only three arguments I've heard that even try to argue against it: 1. That the grandchildren of an award winning hero may be traumatized to learn that it was actually a cover and their ancestor actually died due to friendly fire, a procedural error, or some other less-than-honorable manner. 2. That knowing that history would eventually see all their deeds would cause officials to make \"safe\" or \"nice\" or \"passive\" decisions when sometimes \"dangerous\" or \"mean\" or \"aggressive\" actions are absolutely necessary. 3. That learning of some horrific act done 100 years ago by completely different people and a completely different govt would *still* inspire acts of violent retaliation by individuals or even state actors today. What will NOT change my mind: - 1 is entirely unconvincing to me. While I would feel sympathy for someone learning that a powerful motivating family narrative was a fabrication to cover something ... dirty ... I still think declassifying everything after 100 years is of much greater benefit to society than that cost. - Examples of public officials choosing, due to contemporary public pressure, a \"passive\" decision rather than a \"aggressive\" decision resulting in negative consequences Ways to change my mind: - Demonstrate with historical examples how #2 or #3 has happened with significant negative consequence - Provide me with a different, convincing argument - demonstrating negative consequences from exposure of 100 year old classified material - apart from those I've listed above","c_root_id_A":"e8i6xju","c_root_id_B":"e8i8agm","created_at_utc_A":1540579520,"created_at_utc_B":1540580655,"score_A":7,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Documents in the US require special permission to remain classified after 75 years. You're saying that 25 years later there should be no exceptions whatsoever, even regarding foreign intelligence that could potentially unmask, or make it easier to unmask current agents abroad?","human_ref_B":"I will provide you with evidence that 100 year old classified information will soon be extremely destructive. Lets talk about something practical. Aum Shinrikyo tried to build weapons of mass destruction. [People have investigated what they did and how they did it from a technical and scientific point of view] (https:\/\/s3.amazonaws.com\/files.cnas.org\/documents\/CNAS_AumShinrikyo_SecondEdition_English.pdf?mtime=20160906080510). They were nutjobs, but it's an amazing opportunity to see what a well-educated well-funded group can do with only generic background knowledge. The paper is a fascinating read about how they developed their program, both for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (they also tried crazy scifi stuff like beam or plasma weapons, whatever those are; they failed at nuclear weapons completely for many unrelated reasons). In particular, it highlights what they failed at. They failed because they didn't have engineering knowledge, they only had vague but competent theoretical knowledge. For example, they knew the formula for Sarin, but they didn't know the practical chemical engineering that goes into making Sarin. This is exactly the kind of detail that is classified. Yes, you can make a few grams of Sarin in a lab, but learning the practical tricks of the trade about how to make tons of the stuff without killing yourself, that takes a huge amounts of time and it's very dangerous. That's classified. By about 1940 these techniques were well worked out and by 1950 they were a completely industrialized process. These details are very exacting: what is the composition of the vessels at different stages of the reaction, what temperature should things be hated to, what concentrations are ok, what can you measure to verify purity, etc. They're very tiny details that add up to not being able to manufacture this stuff at scale easily. Figuring out these details is very hard, very dangerous, and takes a long time. When you get a detail wrong without a guide you generally have no good idea what happened. Once someone tells you what these details are, things are infinitely easier. You also have to be clever to figure them out but of average ability to just make use of them. Do you want these nutjobs to have access to this? The report clearly makes the case that they had the funding and the ability to kill many tends of thousands. They just didn't have the howto guide about how to do the practical engineering. Same story for biological weapons, they had a Russian paper describing what should happen, but they didn't have all of the classified details about how these things should happen. Engineering details come into play in all sorts of aspects of the operation. One of the big failures they had is in distributing Sarin. That's why they showed up on trains with shopping bags. They didn't have access to all of the aerosol research the US and Russia (and others) have done on Sarin and how to get it into people at concentration to kill. They built a lot of clumsy distribution mechanisms (one that almost burned the team alive in a van). Had this been 30 years later, and had they had access to all of the 100 year old declassified engineering details, they would have killed an unfathomable number of people. Even with their horrible leadership disfunctions. Just because knowledge is old, doesn't mean it's not dangerous. These details will be as potent and dangerous 200 years from now as they are today.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1135.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"9rk89i","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: All classified govt material should be unclassified after 100 years I believe that transparency is a hugely important thing for the govt of a civil society. One of the things that protects bad actors is the ability to hide their misdeeds from the public. Different justifications are used - most along the lines of \"national security\". But I believe the knowledge that 50 or 75 years after their death, the legacy of officials might be marred by corrupt or illegal acts being revealed would cause more bad behavior to be avoided than \"good\" (but necessary?) behavior might be discouraged. So I believe that **ALL** classified, confidential, top-secret, etc (regardless of whatever of level of secrecy) material should be declassified once it becomes 100 years old. Most people I've said this to tend to agree with me. There are only three arguments I've heard that even try to argue against it: 1. That the grandchildren of an award winning hero may be traumatized to learn that it was actually a cover and their ancestor actually died due to friendly fire, a procedural error, or some other less-than-honorable manner. 2. That knowing that history would eventually see all their deeds would cause officials to make \"safe\" or \"nice\" or \"passive\" decisions when sometimes \"dangerous\" or \"mean\" or \"aggressive\" actions are absolutely necessary. 3. That learning of some horrific act done 100 years ago by completely different people and a completely different govt would *still* inspire acts of violent retaliation by individuals or even state actors today. What will NOT change my mind: - 1 is entirely unconvincing to me. While I would feel sympathy for someone learning that a powerful motivating family narrative was a fabrication to cover something ... dirty ... I still think declassifying everything after 100 years is of much greater benefit to society than that cost. - Examples of public officials choosing, due to contemporary public pressure, a \"passive\" decision rather than a \"aggressive\" decision resulting in negative consequences Ways to change my mind: - Demonstrate with historical examples how #2 or #3 has happened with significant negative consequence - Provide me with a different, convincing argument - demonstrating negative consequences from exposure of 100 year old classified material - apart from those I've listed above","c_root_id_A":"e8hn0mb","c_root_id_B":"e8ifs1p","created_at_utc_A":1540563062,"created_at_utc_B":1540587049,"score_A":10,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"As a general global statement I understand this view. However, if the atrocities were bad enough a nations involvement could still be damaging to their current foreign policy. The Nanking Massacre was almost 100 years ago, if I were in charge of a Nation and found out we had a major role in that there is no way I would want it released, as it would hurt out current foreign policy. Even Japan releasing the documents, would harm thier relationship with the person who helped. That is also a harm you missed. If you release documents that implicate an ally, then they may get upset.","human_ref_B":"Late to this party, OP. First of all, I think there are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to what classified intelligence is. The modern US classification system labels information as Secret or Top Secret based on these definitions: > (1) ``Top Secret'' shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. > (2) ``Secret'' shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. As others have stated, these secrets already have expiration dates that automatically declassify secrets unless waivers\/requests to extend them are placed. If you read the definitions closely, these secrets do not take a stance on whether actions are corrupt or illegal, but instead are focused on the implications to the country. Let's take an example: ever since we've had nuclear weapons, we've identified targets in the Soviet Union\/Russia we would nuke in the event of a nuclear exchange. These are, as you might expect, Top Secret. Is it a secret that we'd nuke them? No. But is that list of actual targets classified? Yes, absolutely: because to reveal it would allow the Russians to beef up defenses in those areas, move their targets into hiding, find routes to intercept our bombers, etc. What possible illegal acts or corruption could be revealed by revealing these targets? What does the public need to know about these targets? About who we are targeting? About our ultimate guarantor of national defense (a part of our strategy of MAD)? Another example: a lot of classification is done to classify the source. For instance, let's say the Russian Foreign Minister's office has a mole. As you might imagine, that mole is very well connected to the inner workings of the Russian government. Something mundane like \"the Russian Foreign Minister likes three cubes of sugar with his tea\" would be classified Top Secret. Does it show corruption? Illegal acts? Hell, is that even strategically relevant? But it is Top Secret because the knowledge of that would lead Russian counterintelligence to know that someone close to him is giving information to the Americans. Or that the Americans have access to someone in the inner circle. 100 years from now, that might not be relevant as the Source might be dead. However, said Source's family may still be working for us. Said Source's family may be targeted\/attacked if that information was leaked or declassified. And, the Russians would now know that perhaps years or even decades of more material was leaked. Institutional state secrets would be unveiled. I hope this challenges your views of declassifying information. Even seemingly mundane information isn't without massive implications.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23987.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"9rk89i","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: All classified govt material should be unclassified after 100 years I believe that transparency is a hugely important thing for the govt of a civil society. One of the things that protects bad actors is the ability to hide their misdeeds from the public. Different justifications are used - most along the lines of \"national security\". But I believe the knowledge that 50 or 75 years after their death, the legacy of officials might be marred by corrupt or illegal acts being revealed would cause more bad behavior to be avoided than \"good\" (but necessary?) behavior might be discouraged. So I believe that **ALL** classified, confidential, top-secret, etc (regardless of whatever of level of secrecy) material should be declassified once it becomes 100 years old. Most people I've said this to tend to agree with me. There are only three arguments I've heard that even try to argue against it: 1. That the grandchildren of an award winning hero may be traumatized to learn that it was actually a cover and their ancestor actually died due to friendly fire, a procedural error, or some other less-than-honorable manner. 2. That knowing that history would eventually see all their deeds would cause officials to make \"safe\" or \"nice\" or \"passive\" decisions when sometimes \"dangerous\" or \"mean\" or \"aggressive\" actions are absolutely necessary. 3. That learning of some horrific act done 100 years ago by completely different people and a completely different govt would *still* inspire acts of violent retaliation by individuals or even state actors today. What will NOT change my mind: - 1 is entirely unconvincing to me. While I would feel sympathy for someone learning that a powerful motivating family narrative was a fabrication to cover something ... dirty ... I still think declassifying everything after 100 years is of much greater benefit to society than that cost. - Examples of public officials choosing, due to contemporary public pressure, a \"passive\" decision rather than a \"aggressive\" decision resulting in negative consequences Ways to change my mind: - Demonstrate with historical examples how #2 or #3 has happened with significant negative consequence - Provide me with a different, convincing argument - demonstrating negative consequences from exposure of 100 year old classified material - apart from those I've listed above","c_root_id_A":"e8i6xju","c_root_id_B":"e8ifs1p","created_at_utc_A":1540579520,"created_at_utc_B":1540587049,"score_A":7,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Documents in the US require special permission to remain classified after 75 years. You're saying that 25 years later there should be no exceptions whatsoever, even regarding foreign intelligence that could potentially unmask, or make it easier to unmask current agents abroad?","human_ref_B":"Late to this party, OP. First of all, I think there are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to what classified intelligence is. The modern US classification system labels information as Secret or Top Secret based on these definitions: > (1) ``Top Secret'' shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. > (2) ``Secret'' shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe. As others have stated, these secrets already have expiration dates that automatically declassify secrets unless waivers\/requests to extend them are placed. If you read the definitions closely, these secrets do not take a stance on whether actions are corrupt or illegal, but instead are focused on the implications to the country. Let's take an example: ever since we've had nuclear weapons, we've identified targets in the Soviet Union\/Russia we would nuke in the event of a nuclear exchange. These are, as you might expect, Top Secret. Is it a secret that we'd nuke them? No. But is that list of actual targets classified? Yes, absolutely: because to reveal it would allow the Russians to beef up defenses in those areas, move their targets into hiding, find routes to intercept our bombers, etc. What possible illegal acts or corruption could be revealed by revealing these targets? What does the public need to know about these targets? About who we are targeting? About our ultimate guarantor of national defense (a part of our strategy of MAD)? Another example: a lot of classification is done to classify the source. For instance, let's say the Russian Foreign Minister's office has a mole. As you might imagine, that mole is very well connected to the inner workings of the Russian government. Something mundane like \"the Russian Foreign Minister likes three cubes of sugar with his tea\" would be classified Top Secret. Does it show corruption? Illegal acts? Hell, is that even strategically relevant? But it is Top Secret because the knowledge of that would lead Russian counterintelligence to know that someone close to him is giving information to the Americans. Or that the Americans have access to someone in the inner circle. 100 years from now, that might not be relevant as the Source might be dead. However, said Source's family may still be working for us. Said Source's family may be targeted\/attacked if that information was leaked or declassified. And, the Russians would now know that perhaps years or even decades of more material was leaked. Institutional state secrets would be unveiled. I hope this challenges your views of declassifying information. Even seemingly mundane information isn't without massive implications.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7529.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etjawq1","c_root_id_B":"etjch8i","created_at_utc_A":1562869774,"created_at_utc_B":1562870725,"score_A":170,"score_B":936,"human_ref_A":"Wakanda's military strategy is ancient because they're isolationist and don't engage in joint military exercises or even really pay attention to outside wars. https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskScienceFiction\/comments\/8n1zn8\/mcu_infinitywar_why_on_earth_would_the_wakandan\/ https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskScienceFiction\/comments\/8qapnb\/mcu_if_the_wakandan_army_has_those_ranged\/","human_ref_B":"If you want to criticize Infinity War for that, you have to criticize all of cinema. Whether its a one on one fight, several on one, or a battle between armies, no one fights like they would in real life. The point of every fight in every movie isn't to show brilliant military strategy, its for spectacle. Its to look cool. Its to show off the skills of the heroes\/protagonists. No matter how much you train, no one guy is going to take on 20 guys at once like Batman. No one soldier is going to pull off an action movie feat and invade the island of a dictator and kill their entire army single highhandedly like an 80s movie. Movie makers are not going to concern themselves with whats realistic if it hurts the entertainment value of their movie of futuristic technology and aliens that have nothing to base off of anyways. Even things like war movies rarely show the true experience of the real battle they are reenacting. It will always be exaggerated, or show the protagonist to able to take damage that would kill the hundreds of nameless soldiers on screen. Marvel movies are spectacles. They are meant to be unrealistic. They aren't meant to be 100% consistent with reality. They are meant to look cool and entertain. Following perfect military strategy doesn't always look cool.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":951.0,"score_ratio":5.5058823529} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etjch8i","c_root_id_B":"etjacht","created_at_utc_A":1562870725,"created_at_utc_B":1562869438,"score_A":936,"score_B":152,"human_ref_A":"If you want to criticize Infinity War for that, you have to criticize all of cinema. Whether its a one on one fight, several on one, or a battle between armies, no one fights like they would in real life. The point of every fight in every movie isn't to show brilliant military strategy, its for spectacle. Its to look cool. Its to show off the skills of the heroes\/protagonists. No matter how much you train, no one guy is going to take on 20 guys at once like Batman. No one soldier is going to pull off an action movie feat and invade the island of a dictator and kill their entire army single highhandedly like an 80s movie. Movie makers are not going to concern themselves with whats realistic if it hurts the entertainment value of their movie of futuristic technology and aliens that have nothing to base off of anyways. Even things like war movies rarely show the true experience of the real battle they are reenacting. It will always be exaggerated, or show the protagonist to able to take damage that would kill the hundreds of nameless soldiers on screen. Marvel movies are spectacles. They are meant to be unrealistic. They aren't meant to be 100% consistent with reality. They are meant to look cool and entertain. Following perfect military strategy doesn't always look cool.","human_ref_B":"I only saw the film once but wasn't tradition a big theme in the film? Something about preserving the old ways and traditions and how that conflicts with initially the antagonist's, but later also the protagonist's, vision of the future? Isn't this even lampshaded directly at one point by Black panther's sister commenting on how a traditional outfit was really uncomfortable?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1287.0,"score_ratio":6.1578947368} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etja26t","c_root_id_B":"etjch8i","created_at_utc_A":1562869265,"created_at_utc_B":1562870725,"score_A":30,"score_B":936,"human_ref_A":"We\u2019ve only seen them fight each other in Black Panther and the weird four armed dudes in Infinity War. There\u2019s no reason to assume that they don\u2019t fight with ranged weapons (in fact Killmonger is having ranged weapons transported to the sleeper cells in BP) when they have to. They just didn\u2019t have to in both of these situations.","human_ref_B":"If you want to criticize Infinity War for that, you have to criticize all of cinema. Whether its a one on one fight, several on one, or a battle between armies, no one fights like they would in real life. The point of every fight in every movie isn't to show brilliant military strategy, its for spectacle. Its to look cool. Its to show off the skills of the heroes\/protagonists. No matter how much you train, no one guy is going to take on 20 guys at once like Batman. No one soldier is going to pull off an action movie feat and invade the island of a dictator and kill their entire army single highhandedly like an 80s movie. Movie makers are not going to concern themselves with whats realistic if it hurts the entertainment value of their movie of futuristic technology and aliens that have nothing to base off of anyways. Even things like war movies rarely show the true experience of the real battle they are reenacting. It will always be exaggerated, or show the protagonist to able to take damage that would kill the hundreds of nameless soldiers on screen. Marvel movies are spectacles. They are meant to be unrealistic. They aren't meant to be 100% consistent with reality. They are meant to look cool and entertain. Following perfect military strategy doesn't always look cool.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1460.0,"score_ratio":31.2} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etjapjq","c_root_id_B":"etjch8i","created_at_utc_A":1562869654,"created_at_utc_B":1562870725,"score_A":33,"score_B":936,"human_ref_A":"It is not necessary unrealistic to fight in a laughably ineffective way. Just look at the American Revolution. Europeans had been doing this crazy \"line up in a square, fire your muskets, duck, have the guy behind you fire\" thing for decades. When the revolutionaries started shooting at them from the trees and running, they were like \"WTF? That's not how you fight a war!!\" The Aztecs had constant wars in totally ineffective ways because the intent of both sides was to take prisoners alive for sacrifice, not to win. Not every war is a total war. Some do observe customs of engagement.","human_ref_B":"If you want to criticize Infinity War for that, you have to criticize all of cinema. Whether its a one on one fight, several on one, or a battle between armies, no one fights like they would in real life. The point of every fight in every movie isn't to show brilliant military strategy, its for spectacle. Its to look cool. Its to show off the skills of the heroes\/protagonists. No matter how much you train, no one guy is going to take on 20 guys at once like Batman. No one soldier is going to pull off an action movie feat and invade the island of a dictator and kill their entire army single highhandedly like an 80s movie. Movie makers are not going to concern themselves with whats realistic if it hurts the entertainment value of their movie of futuristic technology and aliens that have nothing to base off of anyways. Even things like war movies rarely show the true experience of the real battle they are reenacting. It will always be exaggerated, or show the protagonist to able to take damage that would kill the hundreds of nameless soldiers on screen. Marvel movies are spectacles. They are meant to be unrealistic. They aren't meant to be 100% consistent with reality. They are meant to look cool and entertain. Following perfect military strategy doesn't always look cool.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1071.0,"score_ratio":28.3636363636} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etjawq1","c_root_id_B":"etjacht","created_at_utc_A":1562869774,"created_at_utc_B":1562869438,"score_A":170,"score_B":152,"human_ref_A":"Wakanda's military strategy is ancient because they're isolationist and don't engage in joint military exercises or even really pay attention to outside wars. https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskScienceFiction\/comments\/8n1zn8\/mcu_infinitywar_why_on_earth_would_the_wakandan\/ https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskScienceFiction\/comments\/8qapnb\/mcu_if_the_wakandan_army_has_those_ranged\/","human_ref_B":"I only saw the film once but wasn't tradition a big theme in the film? Something about preserving the old ways and traditions and how that conflicts with initially the antagonist's, but later also the protagonist's, vision of the future? Isn't this even lampshaded directly at one point by Black panther's sister commenting on how a traditional outfit was really uncomfortable?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":336.0,"score_ratio":1.1184210526} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etjawq1","c_root_id_B":"etja26t","created_at_utc_A":1562869774,"created_at_utc_B":1562869265,"score_A":170,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"Wakanda's military strategy is ancient because they're isolationist and don't engage in joint military exercises or even really pay attention to outside wars. https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskScienceFiction\/comments\/8n1zn8\/mcu_infinitywar_why_on_earth_would_the_wakandan\/ https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskScienceFiction\/comments\/8qapnb\/mcu_if_the_wakandan_army_has_those_ranged\/","human_ref_B":"We\u2019ve only seen them fight each other in Black Panther and the weird four armed dudes in Infinity War. There\u2019s no reason to assume that they don\u2019t fight with ranged weapons (in fact Killmonger is having ranged weapons transported to the sleeper cells in BP) when they have to. They just didn\u2019t have to in both of these situations.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":509.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etjawq1","c_root_id_B":"etjapjq","created_at_utc_A":1562869774,"created_at_utc_B":1562869654,"score_A":170,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"Wakanda's military strategy is ancient because they're isolationist and don't engage in joint military exercises or even really pay attention to outside wars. https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskScienceFiction\/comments\/8n1zn8\/mcu_infinitywar_why_on_earth_would_the_wakandan\/ https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskScienceFiction\/comments\/8qapnb\/mcu_if_the_wakandan_army_has_those_ranged\/","human_ref_B":"It is not necessary unrealistic to fight in a laughably ineffective way. Just look at the American Revolution. Europeans had been doing this crazy \"line up in a square, fire your muskets, duck, have the guy behind you fire\" thing for decades. When the revolutionaries started shooting at them from the trees and running, they were like \"WTF? That's not how you fight a war!!\" The Aztecs had constant wars in totally ineffective ways because the intent of both sides was to take prisoners alive for sacrifice, not to win. Not every war is a total war. Some do observe customs of engagement.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":120.0,"score_ratio":5.1515151515} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etjacht","c_root_id_B":"etja26t","created_at_utc_A":1562869438,"created_at_utc_B":1562869265,"score_A":152,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"I only saw the film once but wasn't tradition a big theme in the film? Something about preserving the old ways and traditions and how that conflicts with initially the antagonist's, but later also the protagonist's, vision of the future? Isn't this even lampshaded directly at one point by Black panther's sister commenting on how a traditional outfit was really uncomfortable?","human_ref_B":"We\u2019ve only seen them fight each other in Black Panther and the weird four armed dudes in Infinity War. There\u2019s no reason to assume that they don\u2019t fight with ranged weapons (in fact Killmonger is having ranged weapons transported to the sleeper cells in BP) when they have to. They just didn\u2019t have to in both of these situations.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":173.0,"score_ratio":5.0666666667} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etk0s44","c_root_id_B":"etja26t","created_at_utc_A":1562886037,"created_at_utc_B":1562869265,"score_A":81,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"**Pojnt 1**: Their shields are good. Really good. Black Panther himself is virtually invulnerable to gunfire, and they have energy shields shown being able to stop pretty much anything else. Wakanda, an isolated society, would likely engage in open conflict against itself and its immediate neighbors. Against itself, they aren't going to penetrate the enemy combatant's defenses, so advanced melee weapons are a better choice to simply incapacitate. Against neighbors, they're no match anyways. **Point 2**: Wakandans usually fight to incapacitate, not kill. In Black Panther, when the Wakandans were fighting among themselves, nobody really died because everyone was pulling their punches, metaphorically speaking. Only Killmonger was the primary target. They don't want to hurt their friends, so nobody pulled out the heavy weaponry. Against their citizens, Wakandans would also wish to incapacitate instead of kill just because then they're acting more like a police force. With the nearly totalitarian monarchy that Wakanda has, the citizens don't seem to have any weapons that could come as a threat to the government. **Point 3**: Outside of their nation, the Wakandans tend to be infiltrators and spies. They can't bring heavy weapons or anything too high-tech, so they bring defensive equipment. They also probably don't want to slaughter everyone on foreign soil, so they focus on close combat training and equipment. **Point 4**: The Wakandans, due to the aforementioned points, have trained heavily in close combat. Their enemies were heavily focused on close combat in the Battle for Wakanda in Infinity War. They had full expectation that the enemy would reach them in close combat, so shooting into a melee would risk harming allies. They did the reasonable thing with Warmachine and Falcon engaging in a few bombing runs to soften up the enemy; this is akin to skirmishing in Ancient and Medieval times. You could expect that the Dragonfly ships and such also did some strafing runs, but those become increasingly risky once everyone is in melee with one another. **Point 5**: The Wakandan spears shoot lasers if needed, and the Dragonfly-looking aircraft have machine guns. Also remember that Ulysses Klaue was able to take Wakandan tech and make an arm-laser-cannon thing out of it. Wakandans have the tech, they just choose not to use it much of the time.","human_ref_B":"We\u2019ve only seen them fight each other in Black Panther and the weird four armed dudes in Infinity War. There\u2019s no reason to assume that they don\u2019t fight with ranged weapons (in fact Killmonger is having ranged weapons transported to the sleeper cells in BP) when they have to. They just didn\u2019t have to in both of these situations.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16772.0,"score_ratio":2.7} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etjapjq","c_root_id_B":"etk0s44","created_at_utc_A":1562869654,"created_at_utc_B":1562886037,"score_A":33,"score_B":81,"human_ref_A":"It is not necessary unrealistic to fight in a laughably ineffective way. Just look at the American Revolution. Europeans had been doing this crazy \"line up in a square, fire your muskets, duck, have the guy behind you fire\" thing for decades. When the revolutionaries started shooting at them from the trees and running, they were like \"WTF? That's not how you fight a war!!\" The Aztecs had constant wars in totally ineffective ways because the intent of both sides was to take prisoners alive for sacrifice, not to win. Not every war is a total war. Some do observe customs of engagement.","human_ref_B":"**Pojnt 1**: Their shields are good. Really good. Black Panther himself is virtually invulnerable to gunfire, and they have energy shields shown being able to stop pretty much anything else. Wakanda, an isolated society, would likely engage in open conflict against itself and its immediate neighbors. Against itself, they aren't going to penetrate the enemy combatant's defenses, so advanced melee weapons are a better choice to simply incapacitate. Against neighbors, they're no match anyways. **Point 2**: Wakandans usually fight to incapacitate, not kill. In Black Panther, when the Wakandans were fighting among themselves, nobody really died because everyone was pulling their punches, metaphorically speaking. Only Killmonger was the primary target. They don't want to hurt their friends, so nobody pulled out the heavy weaponry. Against their citizens, Wakandans would also wish to incapacitate instead of kill just because then they're acting more like a police force. With the nearly totalitarian monarchy that Wakanda has, the citizens don't seem to have any weapons that could come as a threat to the government. **Point 3**: Outside of their nation, the Wakandans tend to be infiltrators and spies. They can't bring heavy weapons or anything too high-tech, so they bring defensive equipment. They also probably don't want to slaughter everyone on foreign soil, so they focus on close combat training and equipment. **Point 4**: The Wakandans, due to the aforementioned points, have trained heavily in close combat. Their enemies were heavily focused on close combat in the Battle for Wakanda in Infinity War. They had full expectation that the enemy would reach them in close combat, so shooting into a melee would risk harming allies. They did the reasonable thing with Warmachine and Falcon engaging in a few bombing runs to soften up the enemy; this is akin to skirmishing in Ancient and Medieval times. You could expect that the Dragonfly ships and such also did some strafing runs, but those become increasingly risky once everyone is in melee with one another. **Point 5**: The Wakandan spears shoot lasers if needed, and the Dragonfly-looking aircraft have machine guns. Also remember that Ulysses Klaue was able to take Wakandan tech and make an arm-laser-cannon thing out of it. Wakandans have the tech, they just choose not to use it much of the time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16383.0,"score_ratio":2.4545454545} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etk0hq4","c_root_id_B":"etk0s44","created_at_utc_A":1562885837,"created_at_utc_B":1562886037,"score_A":27,"score_B":81,"human_ref_A":"I'm going to take a completely different tact from everyone else here. At one point in the Marvel 616 comics, the Fantastic Four meet God (Jack Kirby). At that point, The Thing is dead and he gets resurrected by God, who: >put\u2019s the rocks back on Ben, because apparently he\u2019s a more interesting character as miserable monster than a boring human, and God doesn\u2019t want to be bored by the Fantastic Four\u2019s antics. Now, this is an actual argument that in-universe, God cares about what's \"interesting\" to him and will act to make it so. In fact, some people have made similar arguments in real life about Bostrom's simulation argument, that we have incentive to be interesting so that the people running them don't shut them down (in the following paragraph, it assumes our descendants run them, but it applies to any simulation-runner). >If our descendants prefer their simulations to be entertaining, all else equal, then you should want you and the events around you to be entertaining as well, all else equal. \"All the world's a stage, and the people merely players.\" Of course what is regarded as entertaining does vary somewhat across time and cultures, and our distant descendants' tastes will likely vary from ours as well. So one should emphasize widely shared features of entertaining stories. Be funny, outrageous, violent, sexy, strange, pathetic, heroic, ... in a word \"dramatic.\" And in fact, this meeting with God is canon to the entirety of Marvel, because Marvel's multiverse involves different universes. The MCU explicitly occurs on Earth-199999, while the regular comics mostly take place on Earth-616. While beings inside a universe are different, the Living Tribunal and God are multiversal and therefore exist independently of the differences within universes. As a result, one could argue that the Battle of Wakanda is that way specifically because it's what the fictional Kirby God wants it to be like. Maybe He guided Wakandan technological development to favor this, or their cultural development, or just reached into their minds at the final battle and made them fight like that. There is a plausible argument that in a universe where God exists and cares about what's interesting to Himself (Jack Kirby), this is exactly what would happen solely because it's interesting. It's like a variation of the standard Problem of Evil, \"Why is there evil if God is good?\" However, in Marvel, we have no reason to believe that Kirby is perfectly good. A literal answer to \"Why is there evil in Marvel\" could be \"Because God really likes watching superheroes punch each other.\" It would be more unrealistic for Him to just have all the Outriders easily killed by artillery strikes, or for the superheros to never have time to shine.","human_ref_B":"**Pojnt 1**: Their shields are good. Really good. Black Panther himself is virtually invulnerable to gunfire, and they have energy shields shown being able to stop pretty much anything else. Wakanda, an isolated society, would likely engage in open conflict against itself and its immediate neighbors. Against itself, they aren't going to penetrate the enemy combatant's defenses, so advanced melee weapons are a better choice to simply incapacitate. Against neighbors, they're no match anyways. **Point 2**: Wakandans usually fight to incapacitate, not kill. In Black Panther, when the Wakandans were fighting among themselves, nobody really died because everyone was pulling their punches, metaphorically speaking. Only Killmonger was the primary target. They don't want to hurt their friends, so nobody pulled out the heavy weaponry. Against their citizens, Wakandans would also wish to incapacitate instead of kill just because then they're acting more like a police force. With the nearly totalitarian monarchy that Wakanda has, the citizens don't seem to have any weapons that could come as a threat to the government. **Point 3**: Outside of their nation, the Wakandans tend to be infiltrators and spies. They can't bring heavy weapons or anything too high-tech, so they bring defensive equipment. They also probably don't want to slaughter everyone on foreign soil, so they focus on close combat training and equipment. **Point 4**: The Wakandans, due to the aforementioned points, have trained heavily in close combat. Their enemies were heavily focused on close combat in the Battle for Wakanda in Infinity War. They had full expectation that the enemy would reach them in close combat, so shooting into a melee would risk harming allies. They did the reasonable thing with Warmachine and Falcon engaging in a few bombing runs to soften up the enemy; this is akin to skirmishing in Ancient and Medieval times. You could expect that the Dragonfly ships and such also did some strafing runs, but those become increasingly risky once everyone is in melee with one another. **Point 5**: The Wakandan spears shoot lasers if needed, and the Dragonfly-looking aircraft have machine guns. Also remember that Ulysses Klaue was able to take Wakandan tech and make an arm-laser-cannon thing out of it. Wakandans have the tech, they just choose not to use it much of the time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":200.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"cbz5br","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"CMV: The Wakandans fight in a laughably unrealistic way This applies to Black Panther and other MCU movies they appear in. They are a highly advanced civilization, they have force fields guarding the city, city wide camouflage, hovercrafts, nanoparticle technology, and loads of other sci fi tech. When it comes time to fight, they line up in classic formations with swords, spears, antiquated ranged weapons, and shields. Then when the fighting occurs, they **break formation** and fight single handed melee style combat. Guns? Artillery? Aircraft Support? How can they be so advanced but have tactics that would lose to Napolean? There weapons are enhanced, but they would get absolutely get clobbered by any modern army. Surely they would do much better if they had guns?","c_root_id_A":"etja26t","c_root_id_B":"etjapjq","created_at_utc_A":1562869265,"created_at_utc_B":1562869654,"score_A":30,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"We\u2019ve only seen them fight each other in Black Panther and the weird four armed dudes in Infinity War. There\u2019s no reason to assume that they don\u2019t fight with ranged weapons (in fact Killmonger is having ranged weapons transported to the sleeper cells in BP) when they have to. They just didn\u2019t have to in both of these situations.","human_ref_B":"It is not necessary unrealistic to fight in a laughably ineffective way. Just look at the American Revolution. Europeans had been doing this crazy \"line up in a square, fire your muskets, duck, have the guy behind you fire\" thing for decades. When the revolutionaries started shooting at them from the trees and running, they were like \"WTF? That's not how you fight a war!!\" The Aztecs had constant wars in totally ineffective ways because the intent of both sides was to take prisoners alive for sacrifice, not to win. Not every war is a total war. Some do observe customs of engagement.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":389.0,"score_ratio":1.1} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk851xy","c_root_id_B":"hk85ewb","created_at_utc_A":1636651994,"created_at_utc_B":1636652134,"score_A":9,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"If someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, why do you think your only two courses of action are to do nothing or to assault the other person?","human_ref_B":"> In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. This is true if the person who was defending themselves had legitimate fear of bodily harm. Most of the time in actual law, if you *can* just walk away, you're not insulated from assault charges. The point is that *if you can walk away, you should*. Retaliating tends to escalate things. Which brings me to my next part. \"He started it\" is very rarely true. Almost always, what happened was a gradual escalation. At some point there is a line that gets crossed, and it turns from playful or annoying into something that really angers someone. And here's the thing: nobody ever thinks that *they* were the one to cross the line. They only cross the line if the other person does first. But people think of different things as crossing the line, so at some point someone crosses the other person's line without crossing their own, and then the other person's line has been crossed, so they do things that are more aggressive and that cross the first person's line. *Both* people in that situation perceive the other person as having started it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":140.0,"score_ratio":7.2222222222} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk85ewb","c_root_id_B":"hk856vp","created_at_utc_A":1636652134,"created_at_utc_B":1636652047,"score_A":65,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. This is true if the person who was defending themselves had legitimate fear of bodily harm. Most of the time in actual law, if you *can* just walk away, you're not insulated from assault charges. The point is that *if you can walk away, you should*. Retaliating tends to escalate things. Which brings me to my next part. \"He started it\" is very rarely true. Almost always, what happened was a gradual escalation. At some point there is a line that gets crossed, and it turns from playful or annoying into something that really angers someone. And here's the thing: nobody ever thinks that *they* were the one to cross the line. They only cross the line if the other person does first. But people think of different things as crossing the line, so at some point someone crosses the other person's line without crossing their own, and then the other person's line has been crossed, so they do things that are more aggressive and that cross the first person's line. *Both* people in that situation perceive the other person as having started it.","human_ref_B":"But if it is a valid defense then you can just threaten or cajole people into making the first move and then beat the shit out of them with no consequences at all because \"he started it\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":87.0,"score_ratio":13.0} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk86nb3","c_root_id_B":"hk85nce","created_at_utc_A":1636652613,"created_at_utc_B":1636652229,"score_A":48,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"> In actual law the person who started it committed attempted assault or attempted murder and the person defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. A couple of things on this premise. First, and this is a bit of a personal pet peeve, assault IS an attempt crime. It\u2019s attempted battery. You can\u2019t attempt an attempt. I know in modern contexts assault and battery are interchangeable, but it still irks me. Ok, now, substantively this paints with an incredibly broad brush and doesn\u2019t take into account self defense is very fact specific. Imperfect self defense is a very real thing, it usually takes the form of voluntary manslaughter. It\u2019s not black and white. I think in schools it\u2019s a very tricky situation. Violence of any kind can create issues. Being actually beaten up is a different situation, I think there the school needs to punish the aggressor. Schools should teach students bullying (which doesn\u2019t amount to physical violence) and annoyances have forms of resolution other than physical violence. And I think they need to be strict about that. Overall, I think your view paints with way too broad a brush and a lot of these things are very fact specific.","human_ref_B":"The reason we say \"i don't care who started it\" is because most often both parties believe the other started it. It's not that it's totally irrelevent, it's that the parent \/ teacher \/ etc. who says this is never going to get a straightforward answer and in almost all situations the ping-pong of escalation involves both parties failing to _de-escalate_. The behavior we want to teach \/ encourage is _de-escalation_. There is no such thing as \"neutrality\" - there is escalation and de-escalation. These are kids and we want to teach them to to not be involved in violence and to learn how to get out of situations that might result in harm to themselves and others. If we focus only on not being the one who started it, then we'll see a whole validation of passive aggressive complicated behavior that kids absolutely will pull to get around a letter-of-the-law approach that only makes sense in a criminal justice context, and absolutely does not in a \"teach kid to thrive in the world\" context. The goal here is to teach a kid to _not be involved in violent situations_, not \"don't be the one who started it\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":384.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk851xy","c_root_id_B":"hk86nb3","created_at_utc_A":1636651994,"created_at_utc_B":1636652613,"score_A":9,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"If someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, why do you think your only two courses of action are to do nothing or to assault the other person?","human_ref_B":"> In actual law the person who started it committed attempted assault or attempted murder and the person defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. A couple of things on this premise. First, and this is a bit of a personal pet peeve, assault IS an attempt crime. It\u2019s attempted battery. You can\u2019t attempt an attempt. I know in modern contexts assault and battery are interchangeable, but it still irks me. Ok, now, substantively this paints with an incredibly broad brush and doesn\u2019t take into account self defense is very fact specific. Imperfect self defense is a very real thing, it usually takes the form of voluntary manslaughter. It\u2019s not black and white. I think in schools it\u2019s a very tricky situation. Violence of any kind can create issues. Being actually beaten up is a different situation, I think there the school needs to punish the aggressor. Schools should teach students bullying (which doesn\u2019t amount to physical violence) and annoyances have forms of resolution other than physical violence. And I think they need to be strict about that. Overall, I think your view paints with way too broad a brush and a lot of these things are very fact specific.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":619.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk86nb3","c_root_id_B":"hk856vp","created_at_utc_A":1636652613,"created_at_utc_B":1636652047,"score_A":48,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> In actual law the person who started it committed attempted assault or attempted murder and the person defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. A couple of things on this premise. First, and this is a bit of a personal pet peeve, assault IS an attempt crime. It\u2019s attempted battery. You can\u2019t attempt an attempt. I know in modern contexts assault and battery are interchangeable, but it still irks me. Ok, now, substantively this paints with an incredibly broad brush and doesn\u2019t take into account self defense is very fact specific. Imperfect self defense is a very real thing, it usually takes the form of voluntary manslaughter. It\u2019s not black and white. I think in schools it\u2019s a very tricky situation. Violence of any kind can create issues. Being actually beaten up is a different situation, I think there the school needs to punish the aggressor. Schools should teach students bullying (which doesn\u2019t amount to physical violence) and annoyances have forms of resolution other than physical violence. And I think they need to be strict about that. Overall, I think your view paints with way too broad a brush and a lot of these things are very fact specific.","human_ref_B":"But if it is a valid defense then you can just threaten or cajole people into making the first move and then beat the shit out of them with no consequences at all because \"he started it\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":566.0,"score_ratio":9.6} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8e50q","c_root_id_B":"hk894cj","created_at_utc_A":1636655561,"created_at_utc_B":1636653565,"score_A":47,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"> Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" That's *a* scenario. Is it *the* scenario? If a mobster kills your son, and you go kill their son, is \"He started it\" still a valid defense? Of course not. In terms of kids arguing, it may be the case that the problem is *the arguing*, that in arguing both kids have forgotten proper behavior and are being unreasonably loud or unruly in a public setting. In this case, whomever started may not be a factor at all if you can be reasonably sure that the offense was negligible, but the offense *causing a problem* is the arguing. In that case, it *doesn't* matter who started it, the kids need to stop arguing. I think it's better to say that *sometimes* \"he started it\" is a valid defense, but sometimes it is not. It's situation-specific. I will say though that I agree that *too often* parents or custodians or what have you will not apply the \"It doesn't matter who started it\" rationale appropriately, and instead use it to lazily shut down problems without properly assigning fault. I'll even go so far as to say that *when* adults say \"It doesn't matter\", they should explain *why* it doesn't matter. I only take issue with your view that, as a *blanket rule*, it's *always* a valid defense. Sometimes it really doesn't matter who started it.","human_ref_B":"No they aren\u2019t teaching them to just take it, they are teaching them to deescalate and tell an authority figure. This works in real life too. You know what happens with bar fights? Usually both people are arrested and charged with battery. If you don\u2019t fight back, then you go free and the other guy goes to jail. It\u2019s a win win. Bringing self-defense into this is just a wild slippery slope","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1996.0,"score_ratio":2.1363636364} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8e50q","c_root_id_B":"hk85nce","created_at_utc_A":1636655561,"created_at_utc_B":1636652229,"score_A":47,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"> Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" That's *a* scenario. Is it *the* scenario? If a mobster kills your son, and you go kill their son, is \"He started it\" still a valid defense? Of course not. In terms of kids arguing, it may be the case that the problem is *the arguing*, that in arguing both kids have forgotten proper behavior and are being unreasonably loud or unruly in a public setting. In this case, whomever started may not be a factor at all if you can be reasonably sure that the offense was negligible, but the offense *causing a problem* is the arguing. In that case, it *doesn't* matter who started it, the kids need to stop arguing. I think it's better to say that *sometimes* \"he started it\" is a valid defense, but sometimes it is not. It's situation-specific. I will say though that I agree that *too often* parents or custodians or what have you will not apply the \"It doesn't matter who started it\" rationale appropriately, and instead use it to lazily shut down problems without properly assigning fault. I'll even go so far as to say that *when* adults say \"It doesn't matter\", they should explain *why* it doesn't matter. I only take issue with your view that, as a *blanket rule*, it's *always* a valid defense. Sometimes it really doesn't matter who started it.","human_ref_B":"The reason we say \"i don't care who started it\" is because most often both parties believe the other started it. It's not that it's totally irrelevent, it's that the parent \/ teacher \/ etc. who says this is never going to get a straightforward answer and in almost all situations the ping-pong of escalation involves both parties failing to _de-escalate_. The behavior we want to teach \/ encourage is _de-escalation_. There is no such thing as \"neutrality\" - there is escalation and de-escalation. These are kids and we want to teach them to to not be involved in violence and to learn how to get out of situations that might result in harm to themselves and others. If we focus only on not being the one who started it, then we'll see a whole validation of passive aggressive complicated behavior that kids absolutely will pull to get around a letter-of-the-law approach that only makes sense in a criminal justice context, and absolutely does not in a \"teach kid to thrive in the world\" context. The goal here is to teach a kid to _not be involved in violent situations_, not \"don't be the one who started it\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3332.0,"score_ratio":2.35} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8e50q","c_root_id_B":"hk851xy","created_at_utc_A":1636655561,"created_at_utc_B":1636651994,"score_A":47,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"> Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" That's *a* scenario. Is it *the* scenario? If a mobster kills your son, and you go kill their son, is \"He started it\" still a valid defense? Of course not. In terms of kids arguing, it may be the case that the problem is *the arguing*, that in arguing both kids have forgotten proper behavior and are being unreasonably loud or unruly in a public setting. In this case, whomever started may not be a factor at all if you can be reasonably sure that the offense was negligible, but the offense *causing a problem* is the arguing. In that case, it *doesn't* matter who started it, the kids need to stop arguing. I think it's better to say that *sometimes* \"he started it\" is a valid defense, but sometimes it is not. It's situation-specific. I will say though that I agree that *too often* parents or custodians or what have you will not apply the \"It doesn't matter who started it\" rationale appropriately, and instead use it to lazily shut down problems without properly assigning fault. I'll even go so far as to say that *when* adults say \"It doesn't matter\", they should explain *why* it doesn't matter. I only take issue with your view that, as a *blanket rule*, it's *always* a valid defense. Sometimes it really doesn't matter who started it.","human_ref_B":"If someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, why do you think your only two courses of action are to do nothing or to assault the other person?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3567.0,"score_ratio":5.2222222222} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8e50q","c_root_id_B":"hk856vp","created_at_utc_A":1636655561,"created_at_utc_B":1636652047,"score_A":47,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" That's *a* scenario. Is it *the* scenario? If a mobster kills your son, and you go kill their son, is \"He started it\" still a valid defense? Of course not. In terms of kids arguing, it may be the case that the problem is *the arguing*, that in arguing both kids have forgotten proper behavior and are being unreasonably loud or unruly in a public setting. In this case, whomever started may not be a factor at all if you can be reasonably sure that the offense was negligible, but the offense *causing a problem* is the arguing. In that case, it *doesn't* matter who started it, the kids need to stop arguing. I think it's better to say that *sometimes* \"he started it\" is a valid defense, but sometimes it is not. It's situation-specific. I will say though that I agree that *too often* parents or custodians or what have you will not apply the \"It doesn't matter who started it\" rationale appropriately, and instead use it to lazily shut down problems without properly assigning fault. I'll even go so far as to say that *when* adults say \"It doesn't matter\", they should explain *why* it doesn't matter. I only take issue with your view that, as a *blanket rule*, it's *always* a valid defense. Sometimes it really doesn't matter who started it.","human_ref_B":"But if it is a valid defense then you can just threaten or cajole people into making the first move and then beat the shit out of them with no consequences at all because \"he started it\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3514.0,"score_ratio":9.4} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk85nce","c_root_id_B":"hk8fsxn","created_at_utc_A":1636652229,"created_at_utc_B":1636656226,"score_A":20,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"The reason we say \"i don't care who started it\" is because most often both parties believe the other started it. It's not that it's totally irrelevent, it's that the parent \/ teacher \/ etc. who says this is never going to get a straightforward answer and in almost all situations the ping-pong of escalation involves both parties failing to _de-escalate_. The behavior we want to teach \/ encourage is _de-escalation_. There is no such thing as \"neutrality\" - there is escalation and de-escalation. These are kids and we want to teach them to to not be involved in violence and to learn how to get out of situations that might result in harm to themselves and others. If we focus only on not being the one who started it, then we'll see a whole validation of passive aggressive complicated behavior that kids absolutely will pull to get around a letter-of-the-law approach that only makes sense in a criminal justice context, and absolutely does not in a \"teach kid to thrive in the world\" context. The goal here is to teach a kid to _not be involved in violent situations_, not \"don't be the one who started it\".","human_ref_B":"\"he\/she started it\" isn't always a claim of self defence, sometimes it's an attempt at justifying an act of retaliation that wasn't purely necessary in the way that self defence is. If a child has no choice but to defend himself, he may find the teacher responds better to \"I was only defending myself, they didn't let me walk away\" than to \"he started it.\" Considering that, if you have the power to avoid a fight, whether you started it or someone else did, you also have the responsibility to do so. Fighting is incredibly dangerous, if you Google \"man killed with one punch\" you can see how often random street fights lead to the death of one person and the destroyed life of another. Children should be taught from an early age that participating in fights they could have avoided is *unacceptable*, and that there are no winners.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3997.0,"score_ratio":1.1} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk851xy","c_root_id_B":"hk8fsxn","created_at_utc_A":1636651994,"created_at_utc_B":1636656226,"score_A":9,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"If someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, why do you think your only two courses of action are to do nothing or to assault the other person?","human_ref_B":"\"he\/she started it\" isn't always a claim of self defence, sometimes it's an attempt at justifying an act of retaliation that wasn't purely necessary in the way that self defence is. If a child has no choice but to defend himself, he may find the teacher responds better to \"I was only defending myself, they didn't let me walk away\" than to \"he started it.\" Considering that, if you have the power to avoid a fight, whether you started it or someone else did, you also have the responsibility to do so. Fighting is incredibly dangerous, if you Google \"man killed with one punch\" you can see how often random street fights lead to the death of one person and the destroyed life of another. Children should be taught from an early age that participating in fights they could have avoided is *unacceptable*, and that there are no winners.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4232.0,"score_ratio":2.4444444444} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8fsxn","c_root_id_B":"hk8fnef","created_at_utc_A":1636656226,"created_at_utc_B":1636656164,"score_A":22,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"\"he\/she started it\" isn't always a claim of self defence, sometimes it's an attempt at justifying an act of retaliation that wasn't purely necessary in the way that self defence is. If a child has no choice but to defend himself, he may find the teacher responds better to \"I was only defending myself, they didn't let me walk away\" than to \"he started it.\" Considering that, if you have the power to avoid a fight, whether you started it or someone else did, you also have the responsibility to do so. Fighting is incredibly dangerous, if you Google \"man killed with one punch\" you can see how often random street fights lead to the death of one person and the destroyed life of another. Children should be taught from an early age that participating in fights they could have avoided is *unacceptable*, and that there are no winners.","human_ref_B":"Leaving out for a moment \"zero tolerance\" policies, which I agree are idiotic, I think you're leaving out some important details of how these scenarios typically play out. If you had one kid say \"he started it\" and then the other kid said \"yes, I agree, I did start it\" then the adult would probably react accordingly. But what really happens is both kids are claiming the other started it, and that's when the adult says they don't care who started it. They're not so much expressing \"who started it is a valueless proposition\" as \"the prospects of sorting out who started it seem unlikely, and in any event less important to me at the moment than getting these two back in their seats to the other 30 kids can continue their class.\" It's also likely that the teacher knows these kids, knows who is and isn't an instigator, and has a pretty good idea who probably started it. Or if they don't, that they can watch more carefully next time. These kinds of behaviors are rarely a one-off thing. Whatever corrective action a good teacher plans to take is probably not going to happen within the moment of breaking up the fight, and in that moment it's just necessary to restore normality - hence \"I don't care who started it.\" It might just mean I don't care _right now_ and we'll discuss it, or react to it, later.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":62.0,"score_ratio":2.4444444444} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8fsxn","c_root_id_B":"hk856vp","created_at_utc_A":1636656226,"created_at_utc_B":1636652047,"score_A":22,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"\"he\/she started it\" isn't always a claim of self defence, sometimes it's an attempt at justifying an act of retaliation that wasn't purely necessary in the way that self defence is. If a child has no choice but to defend himself, he may find the teacher responds better to \"I was only defending myself, they didn't let me walk away\" than to \"he started it.\" Considering that, if you have the power to avoid a fight, whether you started it or someone else did, you also have the responsibility to do so. Fighting is incredibly dangerous, if you Google \"man killed with one punch\" you can see how often random street fights lead to the death of one person and the destroyed life of another. Children should be taught from an early age that participating in fights they could have avoided is *unacceptable*, and that there are no winners.","human_ref_B":"But if it is a valid defense then you can just threaten or cajole people into making the first move and then beat the shit out of them with no consequences at all because \"he started it\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4179.0,"score_ratio":4.4} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk85nce","c_root_id_B":"hk894cj","created_at_utc_A":1636652229,"created_at_utc_B":1636653565,"score_A":20,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"The reason we say \"i don't care who started it\" is because most often both parties believe the other started it. It's not that it's totally irrelevent, it's that the parent \/ teacher \/ etc. who says this is never going to get a straightforward answer and in almost all situations the ping-pong of escalation involves both parties failing to _de-escalate_. The behavior we want to teach \/ encourage is _de-escalation_. There is no such thing as \"neutrality\" - there is escalation and de-escalation. These are kids and we want to teach them to to not be involved in violence and to learn how to get out of situations that might result in harm to themselves and others. If we focus only on not being the one who started it, then we'll see a whole validation of passive aggressive complicated behavior that kids absolutely will pull to get around a letter-of-the-law approach that only makes sense in a criminal justice context, and absolutely does not in a \"teach kid to thrive in the world\" context. The goal here is to teach a kid to _not be involved in violent situations_, not \"don't be the one who started it\".","human_ref_B":"No they aren\u2019t teaching them to just take it, they are teaching them to deescalate and tell an authority figure. This works in real life too. You know what happens with bar fights? Usually both people are arrested and charged with battery. If you don\u2019t fight back, then you go free and the other guy goes to jail. It\u2019s a win win. Bringing self-defense into this is just a wild slippery slope","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1336.0,"score_ratio":1.1} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk851xy","c_root_id_B":"hk894cj","created_at_utc_A":1636651994,"created_at_utc_B":1636653565,"score_A":9,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"If someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, why do you think your only two courses of action are to do nothing or to assault the other person?","human_ref_B":"No they aren\u2019t teaching them to just take it, they are teaching them to deescalate and tell an authority figure. This works in real life too. You know what happens with bar fights? Usually both people are arrested and charged with battery. If you don\u2019t fight back, then you go free and the other guy goes to jail. It\u2019s a win win. Bringing self-defense into this is just a wild slippery slope","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1571.0,"score_ratio":2.4444444444} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk894cj","c_root_id_B":"hk856vp","created_at_utc_A":1636653565,"created_at_utc_B":1636652047,"score_A":22,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"No they aren\u2019t teaching them to just take it, they are teaching them to deescalate and tell an authority figure. This works in real life too. You know what happens with bar fights? Usually both people are arrested and charged with battery. If you don\u2019t fight back, then you go free and the other guy goes to jail. It\u2019s a win win. Bringing self-defense into this is just a wild slippery slope","human_ref_B":"But if it is a valid defense then you can just threaten or cajole people into making the first move and then beat the shit out of them with no consequences at all because \"he started it\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1518.0,"score_ratio":4.4} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk85nce","c_root_id_B":"hk851xy","created_at_utc_A":1636652229,"created_at_utc_B":1636651994,"score_A":20,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The reason we say \"i don't care who started it\" is because most often both parties believe the other started it. It's not that it's totally irrelevent, it's that the parent \/ teacher \/ etc. who says this is never going to get a straightforward answer and in almost all situations the ping-pong of escalation involves both parties failing to _de-escalate_. The behavior we want to teach \/ encourage is _de-escalation_. There is no such thing as \"neutrality\" - there is escalation and de-escalation. These are kids and we want to teach them to to not be involved in violence and to learn how to get out of situations that might result in harm to themselves and others. If we focus only on not being the one who started it, then we'll see a whole validation of passive aggressive complicated behavior that kids absolutely will pull to get around a letter-of-the-law approach that only makes sense in a criminal justice context, and absolutely does not in a \"teach kid to thrive in the world\" context. The goal here is to teach a kid to _not be involved in violent situations_, not \"don't be the one who started it\".","human_ref_B":"If someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, why do you think your only two courses of action are to do nothing or to assault the other person?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":235.0,"score_ratio":2.2222222222} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk856vp","c_root_id_B":"hk85nce","created_at_utc_A":1636652047,"created_at_utc_B":1636652229,"score_A":5,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"But if it is a valid defense then you can just threaten or cajole people into making the first move and then beat the shit out of them with no consequences at all because \"he started it\"","human_ref_B":"The reason we say \"i don't care who started it\" is because most often both parties believe the other started it. It's not that it's totally irrelevent, it's that the parent \/ teacher \/ etc. who says this is never going to get a straightforward answer and in almost all situations the ping-pong of escalation involves both parties failing to _de-escalate_. The behavior we want to teach \/ encourage is _de-escalation_. There is no such thing as \"neutrality\" - there is escalation and de-escalation. These are kids and we want to teach them to to not be involved in violence and to learn how to get out of situations that might result in harm to themselves and others. If we focus only on not being the one who started it, then we'll see a whole validation of passive aggressive complicated behavior that kids absolutely will pull to get around a letter-of-the-law approach that only makes sense in a criminal justice context, and absolutely does not in a \"teach kid to thrive in the world\" context. The goal here is to teach a kid to _not be involved in violent situations_, not \"don't be the one who started it\".","labels":0,"seconds_difference":182.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk92yvi","c_root_id_B":"hk851xy","created_at_utc_A":1636665704,"created_at_utc_B":1636651994,"score_A":19,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I teach first grade. I probably hear, \"He\/She started it\" once a day bare minimum. The reason we teach that it doesn't matter is because often the fights are really started by accidents. What we're teaching kids is de-escalation and communication. Let me give you two examples that really happened in my class yesterday. M and S were pushing each other while waiting in line to leave the art room. I asked what happened, and M said, \"S hit me.\" I asked S why. He said, \"M took my boat and put it in his bag.\" You see, we had been making things with crumpled tissue paper. S was proud of his boat and thought M was stealing it. When I asked M if he took it and why, he said that S didn't have a bag, so he wanted to carry it for him. This made sense to me because M is a helper. He often helps kids who don't ask for it, and he also just grabs things. We talked about how to say words first and ask for permission because S didn't know what M was thinking. He apologized. When I asked S what he should do if it happens again, he repeated the mantra they've learned. Never hit back. Always tell your friend to stop. If they don't stop, talk to the teacher. He apologized. Then we repeated with M for pushing back. This fight wasn't about bullying. It was about miscommunication. If we hadn't solved it right away, there may be animosity between the boys. Bullying happens after many incidents like this that aren't solved peacfully. When the kids have the tools to communicate with each other and their care-takers, bullying happens less frequently. Here's a different example of how it works when the kids learn this lesson. K came back from recess crying because T pushed her and she fell, hurting her bottom. She did not fight back. When I talked with T, I found out that they were all playing tag together. He just couldn't stop running fast enough and accidentally pushed too hard when he caught her. His mistake (other than being clumsy) was that he didn't apologize and make sure K was OK. We resolved the issue and the two went back to play together some more. It would have been much worse if K had pushed back and the two of them started fighting. K learned how to de-escalate. Almost all of our fights are like this. We've only had a few small incidents of behaviour where the student is mean. Most kids really aren't mean to each other if you can get to the root of these problems quickly like this. The bullying and resentment comes when you don't teach de-escalation. When there is actual bullying, it looks different. We can tell which kids are liars and which are targets. We still teach the target to seek help instead of fighting back. We teach other kids to be brave and defend a friend who's getting picked on. However, we focus on the bully. Why are they acting like this? What can we do to change their attitude. Just punishing them harshly could actually lead to more bullying, believe it or not. We need to find a better solution. We did have one case at the beginning if the year where a boy was being very mean on purpose to a weaker boy in the locker room after PE. Luckily, the other kids (all of whom were friends with O) told me about it. When I confronted O with his behaviour, he admitted it and started crying. We had a good long talk about it, and he admitted he didn't know why he did it. We praised his friends for being principled and taking care of A when he was in danger. Now O and A work together on projects. They're not best friends, but they don't mind being on the same team or even partners in pair groups. Now imagine the same scenario if everyone thought it was OK to fight back. I'd have a whole class of broken noses. And don't forget the angry parents! The idea is to de-escalate while we have strong feelings and then practice communication. For anyone who thinks it's not that simple, I have a lot of experience with this. It really is that simple if you can get everyone at home and in the school community to reinforce it.","human_ref_B":"If someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, why do you think your only two courses of action are to do nothing or to assault the other person?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13710.0,"score_ratio":2.1111111111} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8fnef","c_root_id_B":"hk92yvi","created_at_utc_A":1636656164,"created_at_utc_B":1636665704,"score_A":9,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Leaving out for a moment \"zero tolerance\" policies, which I agree are idiotic, I think you're leaving out some important details of how these scenarios typically play out. If you had one kid say \"he started it\" and then the other kid said \"yes, I agree, I did start it\" then the adult would probably react accordingly. But what really happens is both kids are claiming the other started it, and that's when the adult says they don't care who started it. They're not so much expressing \"who started it is a valueless proposition\" as \"the prospects of sorting out who started it seem unlikely, and in any event less important to me at the moment than getting these two back in their seats to the other 30 kids can continue their class.\" It's also likely that the teacher knows these kids, knows who is and isn't an instigator, and has a pretty good idea who probably started it. Or if they don't, that they can watch more carefully next time. These kinds of behaviors are rarely a one-off thing. Whatever corrective action a good teacher plans to take is probably not going to happen within the moment of breaking up the fight, and in that moment it's just necessary to restore normality - hence \"I don't care who started it.\" It might just mean I don't care _right now_ and we'll discuss it, or react to it, later.","human_ref_B":"I teach first grade. I probably hear, \"He\/She started it\" once a day bare minimum. The reason we teach that it doesn't matter is because often the fights are really started by accidents. What we're teaching kids is de-escalation and communication. Let me give you two examples that really happened in my class yesterday. M and S were pushing each other while waiting in line to leave the art room. I asked what happened, and M said, \"S hit me.\" I asked S why. He said, \"M took my boat and put it in his bag.\" You see, we had been making things with crumpled tissue paper. S was proud of his boat and thought M was stealing it. When I asked M if he took it and why, he said that S didn't have a bag, so he wanted to carry it for him. This made sense to me because M is a helper. He often helps kids who don't ask for it, and he also just grabs things. We talked about how to say words first and ask for permission because S didn't know what M was thinking. He apologized. When I asked S what he should do if it happens again, he repeated the mantra they've learned. Never hit back. Always tell your friend to stop. If they don't stop, talk to the teacher. He apologized. Then we repeated with M for pushing back. This fight wasn't about bullying. It was about miscommunication. If we hadn't solved it right away, there may be animosity between the boys. Bullying happens after many incidents like this that aren't solved peacfully. When the kids have the tools to communicate with each other and their care-takers, bullying happens less frequently. Here's a different example of how it works when the kids learn this lesson. K came back from recess crying because T pushed her and she fell, hurting her bottom. She did not fight back. When I talked with T, I found out that they were all playing tag together. He just couldn't stop running fast enough and accidentally pushed too hard when he caught her. His mistake (other than being clumsy) was that he didn't apologize and make sure K was OK. We resolved the issue and the two went back to play together some more. It would have been much worse if K had pushed back and the two of them started fighting. K learned how to de-escalate. Almost all of our fights are like this. We've only had a few small incidents of behaviour where the student is mean. Most kids really aren't mean to each other if you can get to the root of these problems quickly like this. The bullying and resentment comes when you don't teach de-escalation. When there is actual bullying, it looks different. We can tell which kids are liars and which are targets. We still teach the target to seek help instead of fighting back. We teach other kids to be brave and defend a friend who's getting picked on. However, we focus on the bully. Why are they acting like this? What can we do to change their attitude. Just punishing them harshly could actually lead to more bullying, believe it or not. We need to find a better solution. We did have one case at the beginning if the year where a boy was being very mean on purpose to a weaker boy in the locker room after PE. Luckily, the other kids (all of whom were friends with O) told me about it. When I confronted O with his behaviour, he admitted it and started crying. We had a good long talk about it, and he admitted he didn't know why he did it. We praised his friends for being principled and taking care of A when he was in danger. Now O and A work together on projects. They're not best friends, but they don't mind being on the same team or even partners in pair groups. Now imagine the same scenario if everyone thought it was OK to fight back. I'd have a whole class of broken noses. And don't forget the angry parents! The idea is to de-escalate while we have strong feelings and then practice communication. For anyone who thinks it's not that simple, I have a lot of experience with this. It really is that simple if you can get everyone at home and in the school community to reinforce it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9540.0,"score_ratio":2.1111111111} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk92yvi","c_root_id_B":"hk856vp","created_at_utc_A":1636665704,"created_at_utc_B":1636652047,"score_A":19,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I teach first grade. I probably hear, \"He\/She started it\" once a day bare minimum. The reason we teach that it doesn't matter is because often the fights are really started by accidents. What we're teaching kids is de-escalation and communication. Let me give you two examples that really happened in my class yesterday. M and S were pushing each other while waiting in line to leave the art room. I asked what happened, and M said, \"S hit me.\" I asked S why. He said, \"M took my boat and put it in his bag.\" You see, we had been making things with crumpled tissue paper. S was proud of his boat and thought M was stealing it. When I asked M if he took it and why, he said that S didn't have a bag, so he wanted to carry it for him. This made sense to me because M is a helper. He often helps kids who don't ask for it, and he also just grabs things. We talked about how to say words first and ask for permission because S didn't know what M was thinking. He apologized. When I asked S what he should do if it happens again, he repeated the mantra they've learned. Never hit back. Always tell your friend to stop. If they don't stop, talk to the teacher. He apologized. Then we repeated with M for pushing back. This fight wasn't about bullying. It was about miscommunication. If we hadn't solved it right away, there may be animosity between the boys. Bullying happens after many incidents like this that aren't solved peacfully. When the kids have the tools to communicate with each other and their care-takers, bullying happens less frequently. Here's a different example of how it works when the kids learn this lesson. K came back from recess crying because T pushed her and she fell, hurting her bottom. She did not fight back. When I talked with T, I found out that they were all playing tag together. He just couldn't stop running fast enough and accidentally pushed too hard when he caught her. His mistake (other than being clumsy) was that he didn't apologize and make sure K was OK. We resolved the issue and the two went back to play together some more. It would have been much worse if K had pushed back and the two of them started fighting. K learned how to de-escalate. Almost all of our fights are like this. We've only had a few small incidents of behaviour where the student is mean. Most kids really aren't mean to each other if you can get to the root of these problems quickly like this. The bullying and resentment comes when you don't teach de-escalation. When there is actual bullying, it looks different. We can tell which kids are liars and which are targets. We still teach the target to seek help instead of fighting back. We teach other kids to be brave and defend a friend who's getting picked on. However, we focus on the bully. Why are they acting like this? What can we do to change their attitude. Just punishing them harshly could actually lead to more bullying, believe it or not. We need to find a better solution. We did have one case at the beginning if the year where a boy was being very mean on purpose to a weaker boy in the locker room after PE. Luckily, the other kids (all of whom were friends with O) told me about it. When I confronted O with his behaviour, he admitted it and started crying. We had a good long talk about it, and he admitted he didn't know why he did it. We praised his friends for being principled and taking care of A when he was in danger. Now O and A work together on projects. They're not best friends, but they don't mind being on the same team or even partners in pair groups. Now imagine the same scenario if everyone thought it was OK to fight back. I'd have a whole class of broken noses. And don't forget the angry parents! The idea is to de-escalate while we have strong feelings and then practice communication. For anyone who thinks it's not that simple, I have a lot of experience with this. It really is that simple if you can get everyone at home and in the school community to reinforce it.","human_ref_B":"But if it is a valid defense then you can just threaten or cajole people into making the first move and then beat the shit out of them with no consequences at all because \"he started it\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13657.0,"score_ratio":3.8} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8hhc0","c_root_id_B":"hk92yvi","created_at_utc_A":1636656896,"created_at_utc_B":1636665704,"score_A":4,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"The issue is 'starting it' is a nebulous concept and people who have been fighting aren't really good witnesses anyway. Different people draw different lines for what is or isn't acceptable behaviour. If two people are caught fighting it's possible that both individuals could truthfully believe that the other individual started the fight. For one the idea of who started it could be with who threw the first punch, the other could believe that a push was the beginning or maybe someone said something the other feels is unforgivable. If two people are posturing and threatening and one says 'OK let's go, do something!' is that verbally accepting to fight and thus 'starting it'? Everyone has different lines\\* that they could interpret as starting a fight. ​ \\*EDIT: I should have been clearer here, I mean like 'lines in the sand' that the other person could cross, not lines of dialog.","human_ref_B":"I teach first grade. I probably hear, \"He\/She started it\" once a day bare minimum. The reason we teach that it doesn't matter is because often the fights are really started by accidents. What we're teaching kids is de-escalation and communication. Let me give you two examples that really happened in my class yesterday. M and S were pushing each other while waiting in line to leave the art room. I asked what happened, and M said, \"S hit me.\" I asked S why. He said, \"M took my boat and put it in his bag.\" You see, we had been making things with crumpled tissue paper. S was proud of his boat and thought M was stealing it. When I asked M if he took it and why, he said that S didn't have a bag, so he wanted to carry it for him. This made sense to me because M is a helper. He often helps kids who don't ask for it, and he also just grabs things. We talked about how to say words first and ask for permission because S didn't know what M was thinking. He apologized. When I asked S what he should do if it happens again, he repeated the mantra they've learned. Never hit back. Always tell your friend to stop. If they don't stop, talk to the teacher. He apologized. Then we repeated with M for pushing back. This fight wasn't about bullying. It was about miscommunication. If we hadn't solved it right away, there may be animosity between the boys. Bullying happens after many incidents like this that aren't solved peacfully. When the kids have the tools to communicate with each other and their care-takers, bullying happens less frequently. Here's a different example of how it works when the kids learn this lesson. K came back from recess crying because T pushed her and she fell, hurting her bottom. She did not fight back. When I talked with T, I found out that they were all playing tag together. He just couldn't stop running fast enough and accidentally pushed too hard when he caught her. His mistake (other than being clumsy) was that he didn't apologize and make sure K was OK. We resolved the issue and the two went back to play together some more. It would have been much worse if K had pushed back and the two of them started fighting. K learned how to de-escalate. Almost all of our fights are like this. We've only had a few small incidents of behaviour where the student is mean. Most kids really aren't mean to each other if you can get to the root of these problems quickly like this. The bullying and resentment comes when you don't teach de-escalation. When there is actual bullying, it looks different. We can tell which kids are liars and which are targets. We still teach the target to seek help instead of fighting back. We teach other kids to be brave and defend a friend who's getting picked on. However, we focus on the bully. Why are they acting like this? What can we do to change their attitude. Just punishing them harshly could actually lead to more bullying, believe it or not. We need to find a better solution. We did have one case at the beginning if the year where a boy was being very mean on purpose to a weaker boy in the locker room after PE. Luckily, the other kids (all of whom were friends with O) told me about it. When I confronted O with his behaviour, he admitted it and started crying. We had a good long talk about it, and he admitted he didn't know why he did it. We praised his friends for being principled and taking care of A when he was in danger. Now O and A work together on projects. They're not best friends, but they don't mind being on the same team or even partners in pair groups. Now imagine the same scenario if everyone thought it was OK to fight back. I'd have a whole class of broken noses. And don't forget the angry parents! The idea is to de-escalate while we have strong feelings and then practice communication. For anyone who thinks it's not that simple, I have a lot of experience with this. It really is that simple if you can get everyone at home and in the school community to reinforce it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8808.0,"score_ratio":4.75} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8j1zd","c_root_id_B":"hk92yvi","created_at_utc_A":1636657529,"created_at_utc_B":1636665704,"score_A":5,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"100% agree. We teach our kids not to lay hands on someone (don't start a fight). If someone is bugging you physically then tell them stoo. If they dont you can make them stop. You cant beat them up but you can push them or grab them to make them stop hitting you. This happened at school. Kid was pulling my kids hair. My kod said to stop it. Kid kept pulling my kids hair so my kid pushed him. Hairpuller started crying.Teachers had a meeting with us after school. The above version of events was accepted as what happened so I defended my kid despite strong hints that they were both wrong.","human_ref_B":"I teach first grade. I probably hear, \"He\/She started it\" once a day bare minimum. The reason we teach that it doesn't matter is because often the fights are really started by accidents. What we're teaching kids is de-escalation and communication. Let me give you two examples that really happened in my class yesterday. M and S were pushing each other while waiting in line to leave the art room. I asked what happened, and M said, \"S hit me.\" I asked S why. He said, \"M took my boat and put it in his bag.\" You see, we had been making things with crumpled tissue paper. S was proud of his boat and thought M was stealing it. When I asked M if he took it and why, he said that S didn't have a bag, so he wanted to carry it for him. This made sense to me because M is a helper. He often helps kids who don't ask for it, and he also just grabs things. We talked about how to say words first and ask for permission because S didn't know what M was thinking. He apologized. When I asked S what he should do if it happens again, he repeated the mantra they've learned. Never hit back. Always tell your friend to stop. If they don't stop, talk to the teacher. He apologized. Then we repeated with M for pushing back. This fight wasn't about bullying. It was about miscommunication. If we hadn't solved it right away, there may be animosity between the boys. Bullying happens after many incidents like this that aren't solved peacfully. When the kids have the tools to communicate with each other and their care-takers, bullying happens less frequently. Here's a different example of how it works when the kids learn this lesson. K came back from recess crying because T pushed her and she fell, hurting her bottom. She did not fight back. When I talked with T, I found out that they were all playing tag together. He just couldn't stop running fast enough and accidentally pushed too hard when he caught her. His mistake (other than being clumsy) was that he didn't apologize and make sure K was OK. We resolved the issue and the two went back to play together some more. It would have been much worse if K had pushed back and the two of them started fighting. K learned how to de-escalate. Almost all of our fights are like this. We've only had a few small incidents of behaviour where the student is mean. Most kids really aren't mean to each other if you can get to the root of these problems quickly like this. The bullying and resentment comes when you don't teach de-escalation. When there is actual bullying, it looks different. We can tell which kids are liars and which are targets. We still teach the target to seek help instead of fighting back. We teach other kids to be brave and defend a friend who's getting picked on. However, we focus on the bully. Why are they acting like this? What can we do to change their attitude. Just punishing them harshly could actually lead to more bullying, believe it or not. We need to find a better solution. We did have one case at the beginning if the year where a boy was being very mean on purpose to a weaker boy in the locker room after PE. Luckily, the other kids (all of whom were friends with O) told me about it. When I confronted O with his behaviour, he admitted it and started crying. We had a good long talk about it, and he admitted he didn't know why he did it. We praised his friends for being principled and taking care of A when he was in danger. Now O and A work together on projects. They're not best friends, but they don't mind being on the same team or even partners in pair groups. Now imagine the same scenario if everyone thought it was OK to fight back. I'd have a whole class of broken noses. And don't forget the angry parents! The idea is to de-escalate while we have strong feelings and then practice communication. For anyone who thinks it's not that simple, I have a lot of experience with this. It really is that simple if you can get everyone at home and in the school community to reinforce it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8175.0,"score_ratio":3.8} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk92yvi","c_root_id_B":"hk8lkrl","created_at_utc_A":1636665704,"created_at_utc_B":1636658555,"score_A":19,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I teach first grade. I probably hear, \"He\/She started it\" once a day bare minimum. The reason we teach that it doesn't matter is because often the fights are really started by accidents. What we're teaching kids is de-escalation and communication. Let me give you two examples that really happened in my class yesterday. M and S were pushing each other while waiting in line to leave the art room. I asked what happened, and M said, \"S hit me.\" I asked S why. He said, \"M took my boat and put it in his bag.\" You see, we had been making things with crumpled tissue paper. S was proud of his boat and thought M was stealing it. When I asked M if he took it and why, he said that S didn't have a bag, so he wanted to carry it for him. This made sense to me because M is a helper. He often helps kids who don't ask for it, and he also just grabs things. We talked about how to say words first and ask for permission because S didn't know what M was thinking. He apologized. When I asked S what he should do if it happens again, he repeated the mantra they've learned. Never hit back. Always tell your friend to stop. If they don't stop, talk to the teacher. He apologized. Then we repeated with M for pushing back. This fight wasn't about bullying. It was about miscommunication. If we hadn't solved it right away, there may be animosity between the boys. Bullying happens after many incidents like this that aren't solved peacfully. When the kids have the tools to communicate with each other and their care-takers, bullying happens less frequently. Here's a different example of how it works when the kids learn this lesson. K came back from recess crying because T pushed her and she fell, hurting her bottom. She did not fight back. When I talked with T, I found out that they were all playing tag together. He just couldn't stop running fast enough and accidentally pushed too hard when he caught her. His mistake (other than being clumsy) was that he didn't apologize and make sure K was OK. We resolved the issue and the two went back to play together some more. It would have been much worse if K had pushed back and the two of them started fighting. K learned how to de-escalate. Almost all of our fights are like this. We've only had a few small incidents of behaviour where the student is mean. Most kids really aren't mean to each other if you can get to the root of these problems quickly like this. The bullying and resentment comes when you don't teach de-escalation. When there is actual bullying, it looks different. We can tell which kids are liars and which are targets. We still teach the target to seek help instead of fighting back. We teach other kids to be brave and defend a friend who's getting picked on. However, we focus on the bully. Why are they acting like this? What can we do to change their attitude. Just punishing them harshly could actually lead to more bullying, believe it or not. We need to find a better solution. We did have one case at the beginning if the year where a boy was being very mean on purpose to a weaker boy in the locker room after PE. Luckily, the other kids (all of whom were friends with O) told me about it. When I confronted O with his behaviour, he admitted it and started crying. We had a good long talk about it, and he admitted he didn't know why he did it. We praised his friends for being principled and taking care of A when he was in danger. Now O and A work together on projects. They're not best friends, but they don't mind being on the same team or even partners in pair groups. Now imagine the same scenario if everyone thought it was OK to fight back. I'd have a whole class of broken noses. And don't forget the angry parents! The idea is to de-escalate while we have strong feelings and then practice communication. For anyone who thinks it's not that simple, I have a lot of experience with this. It really is that simple if you can get everyone at home and in the school community to reinforce it.","human_ref_B":"Former teacher and principal here. At my schools, \"he started it\" was a mitigating circumstance but not a full defense. If I could determine someone started a fight, that kid would get the normal consequence ranging from a meeting with parents to suspension. (For the record, violence is the only reason I ever sent a kid home.) The one that didn't start it would get a lesser consequence. Why any consequence at all? 1. We do not want to teach our students that violence is an acceptable problem-solving strategy. When they're adults, they can make up their own minds about when violence is needed. Until then, our obligation is to teach that violence is not a solution. 2. As soon as word spreads that saying \"he started it\" is a Get Out Of Jail Free card, the number of fights will increase. Worse, everyone will be claiming self-defense, and unless there's video evidence, it will be very hard to decide with any accuracy who was at fault. Parents will also pick up on that, and almost all of them will be calling me claiming the other kid started it. 3. \"Started it\" is slippery. Who threw the first punch? Great data point. But what about a verbal threat? What about teasing? I had a case once where Student A admitted to starting a fight with Student B--because Student A's mom had died a few weeks before, and Student B was saying she was a whore who is better off dead in a ditch. Who is at fault there? Student A is both victim and instigator.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7149.0,"score_ratio":4.75} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8fnef","c_root_id_B":"hk856vp","created_at_utc_A":1636656164,"created_at_utc_B":1636652047,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Leaving out for a moment \"zero tolerance\" policies, which I agree are idiotic, I think you're leaving out some important details of how these scenarios typically play out. If you had one kid say \"he started it\" and then the other kid said \"yes, I agree, I did start it\" then the adult would probably react accordingly. But what really happens is both kids are claiming the other started it, and that's when the adult says they don't care who started it. They're not so much expressing \"who started it is a valueless proposition\" as \"the prospects of sorting out who started it seem unlikely, and in any event less important to me at the moment than getting these two back in their seats to the other 30 kids can continue their class.\" It's also likely that the teacher knows these kids, knows who is and isn't an instigator, and has a pretty good idea who probably started it. Or if they don't, that they can watch more carefully next time. These kinds of behaviors are rarely a one-off thing. Whatever corrective action a good teacher plans to take is probably not going to happen within the moment of breaking up the fight, and in that moment it's just necessary to restore normality - hence \"I don't care who started it.\" It might just mean I don't care _right now_ and we'll discuss it, or react to it, later.","human_ref_B":"But if it is a valid defense then you can just threaten or cajole people into making the first move and then beat the shit out of them with no consequences at all because \"he started it\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4117.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"qrq6hr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: He started it is a perfectly valid defense and we should've never been taught otherwise Everyone knows the scenario, two kids are fighting or getting into it in some manner or another and then the parent or teacher or principal or whatever breaks them up and one says \"he started it\" and then the authority figures says \"I don't care who started it\" I'm sure you've seen it happen in real life and maybe even had it happen to you as well as in media and what not. This is a horrible thing to teach kids, it basically says if someone is bullying\/assaulting\/annoying you, you are not allowed to do anything to defend yourself or retaliate you just have to sit there and take it (until presumably you snap and shoot up a school). In actual law the person who started it committed assault or attempted murder and the person who is defending themselves committed no crime even if they kill them. When it comes to kids the stakes are a lot lower so it's easy to brush off the whole thing and tell them both to shut up but while that might be convenient for the adult it's very damaging for the children, because the aggressor is taught they can get anyone they want in trouble by aggressing on them and will face no more than equal consequences and might even be able to use that to extort people and like I said before the defender is taught that they should never fight back or retaliate. So instead of teaching kids that it matters who started it and thus you should never aggress on someone as they are justified in retaliating we teach them never to retaliate enabling the aggressors.","c_root_id_A":"hk8j1zd","c_root_id_B":"hk8hhc0","created_at_utc_A":1636657529,"created_at_utc_B":1636656896,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"100% agree. We teach our kids not to lay hands on someone (don't start a fight). If someone is bugging you physically then tell them stoo. If they dont you can make them stop. You cant beat them up but you can push them or grab them to make them stop hitting you. This happened at school. Kid was pulling my kids hair. My kod said to stop it. Kid kept pulling my kids hair so my kid pushed him. Hairpuller started crying.Teachers had a meeting with us after school. The above version of events was accepted as what happened so I defended my kid despite strong hints that they were both wrong.","human_ref_B":"The issue is 'starting it' is a nebulous concept and people who have been fighting aren't really good witnesses anyway. Different people draw different lines for what is or isn't acceptable behaviour. If two people are caught fighting it's possible that both individuals could truthfully believe that the other individual started the fight. For one the idea of who started it could be with who threw the first punch, the other could believe that a push was the beginning or maybe someone said something the other feels is unforgivable. If two people are posturing and threatening and one says 'OK let's go, do something!' is that verbally accepting to fight and thus 'starting it'? Everyone has different lines\\* that they could interpret as starting a fight. ​ \\*EDIT: I should have been clearer here, I mean like 'lines in the sand' that the other person could cross, not lines of dialog.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":633.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4kx66","c_root_id_B":"dd4lgyo","created_at_utc_A":1485830116,"created_at_utc_B":1485830791,"score_A":549,"score_B":1587,"human_ref_A":">The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Please state one of his positions that are generally logical and well reasoned. Cause as far as I can tell, it's none. When talking about the height of his wall, he even disproved himself in his own logic. There's zero evidence for his xenophobia of immigrants or refugees. Of the more than 750k refugees admitted to the US since 9\/11, 3 have been arrested for terrorism related charges, and not a single person has been killed under the guise of terrorism from those 3. There's zero evidence there was ever a plan to get Mexico to pay for a wall. There's zero evidence for the grand majority of the things he said on the campaign trail. Hell, he flip-flopped on his positions 141 times during the campaign...up until July of last year. So please, tell us just one of his spectrum of opinions you felt was logical or well reasoned. And then maybe we can show you the error in your ways. >Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. You mean the situation that's happening in Europe...and not the US? He's creating a problem that doesn't exist, and then is going to take credit for fixing it. This problem exists in Europe because they share a land boarder with the country with the refugee crisis, which is something the US doesn't have. The only way for those refugees to get over here is by plane, which can't happen unless they're allowed access, which can't happen until they go through the appropriate screening for refugees, which is the highest level of vetting the US currently has, which takes on average 2 years to complete. So, please, enlighten us as to how what's happening in Europe has any play in the US when it comes to refugees. If refugees are so terrifying, then why is it twice as likely to be killed by a homegrown white supremacist or antigovernment fanatic than a muslim terrorist? Facts suck for Trump. >...while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I don't think you were listening properly. That was what Trump was doing the majority of his campaign. I'm not going to bother citing that, as he's a whiny little bitch, and a quick google will show that he spent more time bitching about people disagreeing with him than actually talking about policy. >The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. Because people fought against him! The executive order specifically targeted these individuals as well, and it wasn't until the courts took him to task and declared it unconstitutional that it was \"solved.\" I use quotes because there's still people being denied access to the US who should still be allowed to enter, which means it's far from solved. What's more, Trump has decided to use alt-facts to say that any disruption in airports this weekend wasn't from his policy, but from a Delta outage....despite disruption starting on Saturday, and the outage being on Sunday. >In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. We already are. You're talking as if the refugee program doesn't exist, or we don't vet the people who come into the country. We do. Extensively. And we have. This isn't a new problem that requires brand new solutions - it's an old problem we have a pretty good tackle on already, but fuck facts. >I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. So a wall is both a good idea because it does something, but nothing in particular? That makes zero sense. And the cost is far from minimal - we're talking tens of billions of dollars just to build it, plus a few billion annually to maintain it. And that's not even counting the cost for border guards to patrol it all. Fuck all if Mexico's going to pay for it. That was a shitty campaign promise that Trump has zero authority to uphold, and it's already put relations with Mexico at an all time low. The words \"lowest since the Mexican American War\" really suck when it's coming from one of our closest trading partners. Really doesn't bode well for the US, especially when we'd need Mexico on board with us if we want to renegotiate NAFTA. >I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. Citation needed. You feel. That's not proof. >...overall trade between the three NAFTA partners \u2014 the U.S., Canada and Mexico \u2014 has increased sharply over the pact\u2019s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. Now that's getting towards some level of proof. Free trade minimizes costs for the average american, which means things cost less, which means that the average american can buy more things. This has only improved since NAFTA was signed. Or we could get rid of such trade deals, implement tariffs, and then pass that cost off to the average American. I'm sure that'll bring back the autoworker jobs, despite those being in a decline since before NAFTA (because of the low quality of american cars compared to foreign competition...something that still holds up today), or the factory jobs that have been replaced by automation over the last few decades. >As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. This isn't 1946. The US can't just act unilaterally. We need allies, and international partners. Trump is already hurting our ties with our closest allies. There's a petition with over a million signatures in the UK asking the government to not allow Trump into the country. We're reliant on the UK (and other countries) to get things done internationally, either through military means, or politically through the UN. We're fighting against Russia and China on many different fronts, in terms of trade and influence, and not necessarily through open military might. Trump puts that at risk. Not only that, but Trump just this weekend removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Security Counsel, and instead puts his ~~head of propaganda~~ senior adviser (yes, I'm biased against Trump), Bannon, as a permanent member. >I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. Really? Despite him claiming numerous times otherwise on the campaign trail? He wants to go to war with ISIS. Period. > but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. So berating a gold star family for a solid two weeks for speaking out against him isn't cruel or vindictive? How about how he'll jump at any opportunity to talk poorly about his detractors (not citing because it's so rampant, just google). Or Rosie O'donnel (http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/08\/07\/politics\/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud\/). Or Megyn Kelly? Did you even listen to the guy? The majority of what he said was bitching about people who talked poorly about him. He's nothing but cruel or vindictive. >Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. You're openly supporting Trump. With his track record, and his lack of any sort of care about actual facts, are you really surprised? Can you point to a single major stance of his that isn't xenophobic (and that's a best case scenario), or actually supported by facts? So far he's all bluster, a total dick (which I get why people like that sort of thing), and a whiny little bitch whenever someone doesn't sing his praises. That's been his M.O. since he announced his presidency, and it has no signs of changing. So please, enlighten us as to why this guy isn't total scum.","human_ref_B":"Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency. I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader. Kellyanne Conway's statements at Meet the Press are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it \"for a greater good.\" His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to \"win.\" In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, \"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably \u2014 maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.\" It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him. If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public? Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign. Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president *must* be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it. I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other. *edit: grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":675.0,"score_ratio":2.8907103825} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4lgyo","c_root_id_B":"dd4f7cx","created_at_utc_A":1485830791,"created_at_utc_B":1485822966,"score_A":1587,"score_B":509,"human_ref_A":"Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency. I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader. Kellyanne Conway's statements at Meet the Press are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it \"for a greater good.\" His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to \"win.\" In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, \"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably \u2014 maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.\" It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him. If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public? Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign. Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president *must* be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it. I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other. *edit: grammar","human_ref_B":"> The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I have the exact opposite view. Want to share those logical views and we can discuss? Your statement on immigration is not logical. We can agree that the stated reason for the order is to prevent terrorism. You believe as I do that terrorism is not a threat. Therefore this action is not logical. If the intent is to stop immigration due to increasing nationalization then the reason is a lie. We can argue nationalization vs globalization separately. EDIT: Adding wall and jobs. You agree the wall won't stop most immigration. The logical conclusion is that you don't need a wall. 13B to stop some, unquantified amount of immigration is illogical and whatever that stops will just switch to the method that works. Trade is not just about jobs. It's about prices. If you impose tariffs, sure jobs may come back. However, in the US it's cheaper to build robots to do menial work than pay a person, the wages are just too high. So we will bring back factories but not jobs. Our prices of goods will skyrocket. We import almost all of what we buy. The reason it is so cheap is because it's made in China. You make the same thing in the US it'll cost 3x as much. Businesses will die due to lack of demand and those new jobs and many more will disappear and we will go into a great depression. Beware of anyone who only speaks to one side of an economic decision.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7825.0,"score_ratio":3.1178781925} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4h8um","c_root_id_B":"dd4lgyo","created_at_utc_A":1485825546,"created_at_utc_B":1485830791,"score_A":182,"score_B":1587,"human_ref_A":"> In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. What America should be doing is making American workers more competitive in the international marketplace. That's the long term solution if the US wants to remain a superpower. Donald Trump's strategy is to stop anyone with cheaper or higher quality goods from being able to sell products in the US. It's a short term solution that relies on America's fear rather than it's optimism. One way of doing that is to make American employees more skilled. For example, the US has the money to invest in teaching everyone how to code. Coding is to 2017 as literacy was to 1817. At that time, most Americans were farmers and the jobs that people do now didn't even exist then. Even the most menial service job today requires people to know how to read and do basic math. Coding would represent the same type of growth. Another way to make American employees better is to encourage Americans to go abroad. In the US, a person who can read, write, and do basic math at the high school level is qualified for only menial jobs. But they are more skilled that hundreds of millions of people abroad. They are competing for the same jobs as people who are illiterate. What Americans should be doing is going abroad to start their own businesses and hiring those unskilled workers to do basic things for them. Instead of becoming capitalists, they are trying to compete as labor despite being significantly overqualified. Donald Trump is trying to preserve an old way of life even though the conditions that made it possible doesn't exist anymore. The 1950's US was successful because factories were brand new developments, and there was no competition from Europe, which was razed to the ground during WWII, or the rest of the world, which was limited due to colonialism. Today, Europe is highly developed, and the fastest growing economies in the world are India and China. Donald Trump's strategy only works if the US is willing to only trade with the US. The problem with this is that the US's growth rate is much slower than other countries. You can't sell cars to Americans who already own cars. You can sell them to Indians and Chinese people who have never owned a car before. If you cut out buying products from abroad, you also make it difficult to sell abroad too. If the US is the only large economy in the world, then Trump's strategy works. The problem is that soon the US won't be the only large economy. All the cool stuff Americans love like big militaries, missions to the moon, entitlement programs, etc. all rely on massive economic growth. If the US has less money in the long term, which every economist from liberals like Paul Krugman to conservatives like Milton Friedman predict will happen if the US shifts away from free trade, it won't be able to afford everything that makes America great. In short, Trump is prioritizing short term rewards over long term growth. It's the economic equivalent of eating pizza and drinking beer instead of going to the gym and lifting weights. It'll make people happy in the short term, but also make them fat and weak in the long term. India, China, and the rest of the world are getting more and more rich and powerful every day. There are simply too many people there for it not to happen. If the US refuses to invest in emerging markets today, it will get bowled over in the future. And as those countries become the largest economies in the world, they will have the cash and clout to become the most powerful countries in the world too.","human_ref_B":"Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency. I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader. Kellyanne Conway's statements at Meet the Press are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it \"for a greater good.\" His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to \"win.\" In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, \"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably \u2014 maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.\" It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him. If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public? Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign. Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president *must* be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it. I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other. *edit: grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5245.0,"score_ratio":8.7197802198} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4lgyo","c_root_id_B":"dd4gi9j","created_at_utc_A":1485830791,"created_at_utc_B":1485824627,"score_A":1587,"score_B":156,"human_ref_A":"Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency. I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader. Kellyanne Conway's statements at Meet the Press are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it \"for a greater good.\" His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to \"win.\" In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, \"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably \u2014 maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.\" It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him. If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public? Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign. Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president *must* be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it. I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other. *edit: grammar","human_ref_B":"For the love of god. First Bush the younger goes to town in the middle east and destabilizes the region for a generation. Then when the refugees start to flow it's suddenly not America's problem anymore? America, more than any other country in the world, has a responsibility to mitigate the suffering in Syria. It was the prime mover of that shit show, and the country should own the mess. Now, the above is a moral argument. There is also one rooted in real politic. The ban on travel from muslim countries is not only a dick move of elephantine proportions, it's is counterproductive in meeting its stated objective: keeping America safe. First, it is an excellent recruiting point for Islamic Radicals, who can now rightly point to the fact that the American administration is discriminating against its Muslim brothers. Second, it weakens the position of our regional allies, who are now even more isolated and on the defensive in their own countries Third, it will hurt the economies of these countries (just as Trump's idiotic threat of a trade war), further fanning the flames of extremism. And don't get me started on the wall. The US economy WINS with the supply of low income immigrant labor. They are not taking American jobs, because there are not enough Americans willing to pick fruit and clean toilets. This blame the immigrant and create an enemy (muslims) shtick is straight out of the fascist playbook. Yes, u\/LordKX, FASCIST. Trump is a callous lunatic with no regard for the rest of the world. You can still redeem yourself, but time is running out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6164.0,"score_ratio":10.1730769231} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4fraz","c_root_id_B":"dd4lgyo","created_at_utc_A":1485823665,"created_at_utc_B":1485830791,"score_A":90,"score_B":1587,"human_ref_A":"> In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. They were given visas by the government, so there is some reasonable expectations to be allowed to enter. > but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. How is it being smart when you explicitly say no to everyone except for this specific religion (christians)? Why is automatically helping christains are automatically smart and not everyone else? > However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. The big danger is that the wall revenue source will continue after the wall is paid and the plan is that Americans will first pay for it. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Right now it looks like we are headed to a trade war with China and Mexico would raise the price of goods in the US. So higher prices at Walmart will just hurt Americans.","human_ref_B":"Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency. I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader. Kellyanne Conway's statements at Meet the Press are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it \"for a greater good.\" His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to \"win.\" In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, \"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably \u2014 maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.\" It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him. If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public? Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign. Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president *must* be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it. I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other. *edit: grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7126.0,"score_ratio":17.6333333333} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4h1nh","c_root_id_B":"dd4lgyo","created_at_utc_A":1485825295,"created_at_utc_B":1485830791,"score_A":65,"score_B":1587,"human_ref_A":"> I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. \u00a0 If Trump had literally any other role in society, sure, look past his flaws.\u00a0 But he\u2019s not just some joe-schmoe, he\u2019s the fucking president of our country.\u00a0 You\u2019re letting his worst flaws represent you and your country, so I don\u2019t think those flaws should be so casually forgiven, nor do I think your respect should be so easily handed over to him.\u00a0 Come on, you\u2019re better than that and America is better than that. \u00a0 > Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. \u00a0 You are admitting that you think this policy will be ineffectual, but you admire that he is showing \u201ccommitment\u201d.\u00a0 Both you and our country deserve better than ineffectual commitments.\u00a0 \u00a0 > The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. \u00a0 Again, you seem to recognize here that Trump fucked up.\u00a0 Why is that so easy for you to shrug off?\u00a0 \u00a0 > I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. \u00a0 Again, you are praising Trump for proposing an ineffective solution to a problem.\u00a0 He\u2019s our *president*, feel free to hold him to a higher standard! \u00a0 > I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.\u00a0 \u00a0 Even if you have the knowledge of global economics to support your claim that free trade deals are a problem, you just admitted that Trump doesn\u2019t have you convinced that he can do anything about it.\u00a0 Why support him then? \u00a0 > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. \u00a0 Here, you are basically bragging that Trump\u2019s embarrassing buffoonery is okay because it won\u2019t end up triggering World War III.\u00a0 Why are your standards so insanely low?!\u00a0 \u00a0 > Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. \u00a0 So as long as a candidate isn\u2019t a complete fucking psychopath, you are okay with them \u00a0 \u00a0 > If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained. I hope I wasn't too un-civil, but honestly I will never understand Trump supporters.\u00a0 Even if you set aside all of his policies (which is a HUGE set-aside, by the way, his policies scare the shit out of me!), there is still the fact that our country is now represented by a fat orange retard.\u00a0 Did you ever learn about past Presidents in grade school?\u00a0 Do you remember anything about Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or hell, even Ronald Reagan?\u00a0 You really think Trump is worthy of standing next to them and upholding their legacy?\u00a0 As a conservative, you could have gone with **literally any other fucking candidate** and I would have at least *respected* them as my president, but not Trump.","human_ref_B":"Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency. I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader. Kellyanne Conway's statements at Meet the Press are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it \"for a greater good.\" His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to \"win.\" In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, \"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably \u2014 maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.\" It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him. If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public? Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign. Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president *must* be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it. I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other. *edit: grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5496.0,"score_ratio":24.4153846154} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4fej9","c_root_id_B":"dd4lgyo","created_at_utc_A":1485823220,"created_at_utc_B":1485830791,"score_A":56,"score_B":1587,"human_ref_A":">However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. I can't imagine where you're coming from on this one. Probably the one consistent thing I've heard about the wall is how expensive it will be. From his executive order on the wall, >The executive orders Trump signed Wednesday call for boosting the ranks of Border Patrol forces by an additional 5,000 agents as well as for 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to carry out deportations. Not even taking the construction of a wall into consideration, that's 15,000 new full time employees. The average salary of a Border Patrol Officer *last year* was about $80,000. Fifteen-thousand people being paid an average annual salary of eighty-thousand dollars **will cost American taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars every year**. And that's just the costs of employing people! No construction whatsoever. That doesn't even represent the cost of hiring *construction workers*. So where you get the idea that this will be anything short of hugely expensive, I don't know. ***************** Other than that, if you see Trump and aren't *repulsed* by how sleazy and awful he is then I don't think I can change that. This slew of executive orders is emblematic of his anti-democratic style. They were unilateral rather than deliberative. They went through zero legal review process. All this bullshit with green cards could have been solved beforehand if Trump had even the slightest respect for the opinion of others. You can go on and on with this guy. He openly advocates for torture. He wants to turn the country into a nation of torturers. I don't think he should be impeached in his first weeks, but it's going to happen the way he's heading.","human_ref_B":"Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency. I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader. Kellyanne Conway's statements at Meet the Press are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it \"for a greater good.\" His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to \"win.\" In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, \"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably \u2014 maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.\" It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him. If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public? Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign. Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president *must* be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it. I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other. *edit: grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7571.0,"score_ratio":28.3392857143} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4hng2","c_root_id_B":"dd4lgyo","created_at_utc_A":1485826056,"created_at_utc_B":1485830791,"score_A":46,"score_B":1587,"human_ref_A":"His office just made an press release about how his immigration policy made sense in light of the recent attack in Quebec. I'm in fucking quebec, and the attack was made by a white nationalist. The only muslim that was named was a witness, and ran away from the scene, that's why he was caught by police. Trump doesn't care about facts, or science, he only wants to do what he wants to do no matter how disastrous it will be for everyone else","human_ref_B":"Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency. I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader. Kellyanne Conway's statements at Meet the Press are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it \"for a greater good.\" His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to \"win.\" In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, \"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably \u2014 maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.\" It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him. If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public? Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign. Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president *must* be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it. I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other. *edit: grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4735.0,"score_ratio":34.5} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4f7x6","c_root_id_B":"dd4lgyo","created_at_utc_A":1485822986,"created_at_utc_B":1485830791,"score_A":47,"score_B":1587,"human_ref_A":"First of all, you didn't really say much in favor of Trump. Your primary arguments are mostly that he isn't that bad. > from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. Senator Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, has estimated it will cost $12-15 billion dollars, and that's probably a low estimate. > In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. Things can be done cheaper in the U.S. too, just with high-tech manufacturing with few workers. That's the way things are moving anyway. If manufacturing comes back to the U.S. it won't bring back the manufacturing jobs the U.S. had 20-30 years ago. Besides, putting up trade barriers and tariffs will lead other countries to do the same. Take Mexico. The U.S. exports $236 billion in goods to Mexico. That is put in jeopardy if a trade war ensues. Prices of goods in the U.S. go up due to the tariffs. Supply chains are disrupted. Things are messed up bigly. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. China is on the rise economically, and is one of the countries that is best positioned to take care of an isolationist United States. The U.S. is not going to be \"ignored,\" but the role of the U.S. as the clearly most powerful nation in the world is not assured.","human_ref_B":"Hey, first I just want to say thank you for doing all of this. You already probably get a lot of flak for simply expressing your views, and I'm sorry if you've heard all of this before. Many others can and have offered more economic based analysis, but I simply want to offer my personal perspective of why I feel uneasy about Trump and his presidency. I don't think that everything about Trump is bad, and I do believe that many times he is justified in his defense of himself, but to me, it is his own love for himself above all that makes me afraid. He is oftentimes unwilling to see the validity in any perspective other than his own, which is an essential part of not only being a good representative, but also a good leader. Kellyanne Conway's statements at Meet the Press are incredibly troubling. Alternative facts? There can be alternate analyses. There can be logical refutations (the pictures of the crowds are at different times, etc.). But there cannot be two different sets of facts. She did not even attempt to reconcile the two perspectives or offer a reason why they were right and the news was incorrect. This isn't even something that matters. I sure as hell don't care how big the crowd is. But if his administration is willing to lie right from the get go, when the stakes don't even matter, I have full faith that they will have no qualms lying to the American people when they believe they're doing it \"for a greater good.\" His statements using his own ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him sends to me the message that he is willing to say anything in order to \"win.\" In response to criticisms from the family of a fallen soldier saying that Trump had made no sacrifices for his country, he refuted it with what he felt were his sacrifices but he added on, \"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably \u2014 maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.\" It's horrifying what countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. are doing in the terms of women's rights in the name of Islam, but this was simply a tactic to distract from the points. He made these allegations that had (1) nothing to do with their statements against him (2) had no proof and (3) used their religion and ethnicities as arguments against them. This is scary to me. Obviously, he should be able to defend himself from statements he believes misrepresents him regardless of who they were made by, but the disregard for our service members simply based in religion and ethnicity in order to invalidate criticisms speaks volumes to me, especially since that was his knee-jerk reaction to the question. If he is willing to throw the dignities and reputation of an American military family under the bus to protect himself, what else will he sacrifice? You might dismiss this as anecdotal, and it's not particularly analysis based, but it is important how he treats people who don't agree with him. If he cannot treat those that disagree with him with respect, then what happens when there comes a time that he may disagree with the American public? Trump does not represent me. He does not represent many people. That would be fine, but he does not listen to the concerns of those who do not support him. He lashes out at criticism. This will hinder him from representing the American people effectively, especially if the interests of the country and his own eventually unalign. Just because it's in both Trump's and the American people's best interest to not start a war doesn't mean all of our interests will align. You seem to be unconcerned and even submit it as a benefit that Trump is unwilling to put himself at risk. To me, a president *must* be able to put himself at risk to help the American people. His actions do not give me faith that he would choose the America over himself, especially if he thought he could get away with it. I thank you again, and would love to be proved wrong as well. I want to feel hope for the future, but find it increasingly more difficult as his administration is moving forward. I am sure we can both learn things from each other. *edit: grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7805.0,"score_ratio":33.7659574468} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4kx66","c_root_id_B":"dd4f7cx","created_at_utc_A":1485830116,"created_at_utc_B":1485822966,"score_A":549,"score_B":509,"human_ref_A":">The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Please state one of his positions that are generally logical and well reasoned. Cause as far as I can tell, it's none. When talking about the height of his wall, he even disproved himself in his own logic. There's zero evidence for his xenophobia of immigrants or refugees. Of the more than 750k refugees admitted to the US since 9\/11, 3 have been arrested for terrorism related charges, and not a single person has been killed under the guise of terrorism from those 3. There's zero evidence there was ever a plan to get Mexico to pay for a wall. There's zero evidence for the grand majority of the things he said on the campaign trail. Hell, he flip-flopped on his positions 141 times during the campaign...up until July of last year. So please, tell us just one of his spectrum of opinions you felt was logical or well reasoned. And then maybe we can show you the error in your ways. >Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. You mean the situation that's happening in Europe...and not the US? He's creating a problem that doesn't exist, and then is going to take credit for fixing it. This problem exists in Europe because they share a land boarder with the country with the refugee crisis, which is something the US doesn't have. The only way for those refugees to get over here is by plane, which can't happen unless they're allowed access, which can't happen until they go through the appropriate screening for refugees, which is the highest level of vetting the US currently has, which takes on average 2 years to complete. So, please, enlighten us as to how what's happening in Europe has any play in the US when it comes to refugees. If refugees are so terrifying, then why is it twice as likely to be killed by a homegrown white supremacist or antigovernment fanatic than a muslim terrorist? Facts suck for Trump. >...while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I don't think you were listening properly. That was what Trump was doing the majority of his campaign. I'm not going to bother citing that, as he's a whiny little bitch, and a quick google will show that he spent more time bitching about people disagreeing with him than actually talking about policy. >The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. Because people fought against him! The executive order specifically targeted these individuals as well, and it wasn't until the courts took him to task and declared it unconstitutional that it was \"solved.\" I use quotes because there's still people being denied access to the US who should still be allowed to enter, which means it's far from solved. What's more, Trump has decided to use alt-facts to say that any disruption in airports this weekend wasn't from his policy, but from a Delta outage....despite disruption starting on Saturday, and the outage being on Sunday. >In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. We already are. You're talking as if the refugee program doesn't exist, or we don't vet the people who come into the country. We do. Extensively. And we have. This isn't a new problem that requires brand new solutions - it's an old problem we have a pretty good tackle on already, but fuck facts. >I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. So a wall is both a good idea because it does something, but nothing in particular? That makes zero sense. And the cost is far from minimal - we're talking tens of billions of dollars just to build it, plus a few billion annually to maintain it. And that's not even counting the cost for border guards to patrol it all. Fuck all if Mexico's going to pay for it. That was a shitty campaign promise that Trump has zero authority to uphold, and it's already put relations with Mexico at an all time low. The words \"lowest since the Mexican American War\" really suck when it's coming from one of our closest trading partners. Really doesn't bode well for the US, especially when we'd need Mexico on board with us if we want to renegotiate NAFTA. >I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. Citation needed. You feel. That's not proof. >...overall trade between the three NAFTA partners \u2014 the U.S., Canada and Mexico \u2014 has increased sharply over the pact\u2019s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. Now that's getting towards some level of proof. Free trade minimizes costs for the average american, which means things cost less, which means that the average american can buy more things. This has only improved since NAFTA was signed. Or we could get rid of such trade deals, implement tariffs, and then pass that cost off to the average American. I'm sure that'll bring back the autoworker jobs, despite those being in a decline since before NAFTA (because of the low quality of american cars compared to foreign competition...something that still holds up today), or the factory jobs that have been replaced by automation over the last few decades. >As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. This isn't 1946. The US can't just act unilaterally. We need allies, and international partners. Trump is already hurting our ties with our closest allies. There's a petition with over a million signatures in the UK asking the government to not allow Trump into the country. We're reliant on the UK (and other countries) to get things done internationally, either through military means, or politically through the UN. We're fighting against Russia and China on many different fronts, in terms of trade and influence, and not necessarily through open military might. Trump puts that at risk. Not only that, but Trump just this weekend removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Security Counsel, and instead puts his ~~head of propaganda~~ senior adviser (yes, I'm biased against Trump), Bannon, as a permanent member. >I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. Really? Despite him claiming numerous times otherwise on the campaign trail? He wants to go to war with ISIS. Period. > but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. So berating a gold star family for a solid two weeks for speaking out against him isn't cruel or vindictive? How about how he'll jump at any opportunity to talk poorly about his detractors (not citing because it's so rampant, just google). Or Rosie O'donnel (http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/08\/07\/politics\/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud\/). Or Megyn Kelly? Did you even listen to the guy? The majority of what he said was bitching about people who talked poorly about him. He's nothing but cruel or vindictive. >Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. You're openly supporting Trump. With his track record, and his lack of any sort of care about actual facts, are you really surprised? Can you point to a single major stance of his that isn't xenophobic (and that's a best case scenario), or actually supported by facts? So far he's all bluster, a total dick (which I get why people like that sort of thing), and a whiny little bitch whenever someone doesn't sing his praises. That's been his M.O. since he announced his presidency, and it has no signs of changing. So please, enlighten us as to why this guy isn't total scum.","human_ref_B":"> The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I have the exact opposite view. Want to share those logical views and we can discuss? Your statement on immigration is not logical. We can agree that the stated reason for the order is to prevent terrorism. You believe as I do that terrorism is not a threat. Therefore this action is not logical. If the intent is to stop immigration due to increasing nationalization then the reason is a lie. We can argue nationalization vs globalization separately. EDIT: Adding wall and jobs. You agree the wall won't stop most immigration. The logical conclusion is that you don't need a wall. 13B to stop some, unquantified amount of immigration is illogical and whatever that stops will just switch to the method that works. Trade is not just about jobs. It's about prices. If you impose tariffs, sure jobs may come back. However, in the US it's cheaper to build robots to do menial work than pay a person, the wages are just too high. So we will bring back factories but not jobs. Our prices of goods will skyrocket. We import almost all of what we buy. The reason it is so cheap is because it's made in China. You make the same thing in the US it'll cost 3x as much. Businesses will die due to lack of demand and those new jobs and many more will disappear and we will go into a great depression. Beware of anyone who only speaks to one side of an economic decision.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7150.0,"score_ratio":1.0785854617} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4kx66","c_root_id_B":"dd4h8um","created_at_utc_A":1485830116,"created_at_utc_B":1485825546,"score_A":549,"score_B":182,"human_ref_A":">The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Please state one of his positions that are generally logical and well reasoned. Cause as far as I can tell, it's none. When talking about the height of his wall, he even disproved himself in his own logic. There's zero evidence for his xenophobia of immigrants or refugees. Of the more than 750k refugees admitted to the US since 9\/11, 3 have been arrested for terrorism related charges, and not a single person has been killed under the guise of terrorism from those 3. There's zero evidence there was ever a plan to get Mexico to pay for a wall. There's zero evidence for the grand majority of the things he said on the campaign trail. Hell, he flip-flopped on his positions 141 times during the campaign...up until July of last year. So please, tell us just one of his spectrum of opinions you felt was logical or well reasoned. And then maybe we can show you the error in your ways. >Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. You mean the situation that's happening in Europe...and not the US? He's creating a problem that doesn't exist, and then is going to take credit for fixing it. This problem exists in Europe because they share a land boarder with the country with the refugee crisis, which is something the US doesn't have. The only way for those refugees to get over here is by plane, which can't happen unless they're allowed access, which can't happen until they go through the appropriate screening for refugees, which is the highest level of vetting the US currently has, which takes on average 2 years to complete. So, please, enlighten us as to how what's happening in Europe has any play in the US when it comes to refugees. If refugees are so terrifying, then why is it twice as likely to be killed by a homegrown white supremacist or antigovernment fanatic than a muslim terrorist? Facts suck for Trump. >...while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I don't think you were listening properly. That was what Trump was doing the majority of his campaign. I'm not going to bother citing that, as he's a whiny little bitch, and a quick google will show that he spent more time bitching about people disagreeing with him than actually talking about policy. >The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. Because people fought against him! The executive order specifically targeted these individuals as well, and it wasn't until the courts took him to task and declared it unconstitutional that it was \"solved.\" I use quotes because there's still people being denied access to the US who should still be allowed to enter, which means it's far from solved. What's more, Trump has decided to use alt-facts to say that any disruption in airports this weekend wasn't from his policy, but from a Delta outage....despite disruption starting on Saturday, and the outage being on Sunday. >In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. We already are. You're talking as if the refugee program doesn't exist, or we don't vet the people who come into the country. We do. Extensively. And we have. This isn't a new problem that requires brand new solutions - it's an old problem we have a pretty good tackle on already, but fuck facts. >I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. So a wall is both a good idea because it does something, but nothing in particular? That makes zero sense. And the cost is far from minimal - we're talking tens of billions of dollars just to build it, plus a few billion annually to maintain it. And that's not even counting the cost for border guards to patrol it all. Fuck all if Mexico's going to pay for it. That was a shitty campaign promise that Trump has zero authority to uphold, and it's already put relations with Mexico at an all time low. The words \"lowest since the Mexican American War\" really suck when it's coming from one of our closest trading partners. Really doesn't bode well for the US, especially when we'd need Mexico on board with us if we want to renegotiate NAFTA. >I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. Citation needed. You feel. That's not proof. >...overall trade between the three NAFTA partners \u2014 the U.S., Canada and Mexico \u2014 has increased sharply over the pact\u2019s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. Now that's getting towards some level of proof. Free trade minimizes costs for the average american, which means things cost less, which means that the average american can buy more things. This has only improved since NAFTA was signed. Or we could get rid of such trade deals, implement tariffs, and then pass that cost off to the average American. I'm sure that'll bring back the autoworker jobs, despite those being in a decline since before NAFTA (because of the low quality of american cars compared to foreign competition...something that still holds up today), or the factory jobs that have been replaced by automation over the last few decades. >As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. This isn't 1946. The US can't just act unilaterally. We need allies, and international partners. Trump is already hurting our ties with our closest allies. There's a petition with over a million signatures in the UK asking the government to not allow Trump into the country. We're reliant on the UK (and other countries) to get things done internationally, either through military means, or politically through the UN. We're fighting against Russia and China on many different fronts, in terms of trade and influence, and not necessarily through open military might. Trump puts that at risk. Not only that, but Trump just this weekend removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Security Counsel, and instead puts his ~~head of propaganda~~ senior adviser (yes, I'm biased against Trump), Bannon, as a permanent member. >I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. Really? Despite him claiming numerous times otherwise on the campaign trail? He wants to go to war with ISIS. Period. > but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. So berating a gold star family for a solid two weeks for speaking out against him isn't cruel or vindictive? How about how he'll jump at any opportunity to talk poorly about his detractors (not citing because it's so rampant, just google). Or Rosie O'donnel (http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/08\/07\/politics\/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud\/). Or Megyn Kelly? Did you even listen to the guy? The majority of what he said was bitching about people who talked poorly about him. He's nothing but cruel or vindictive. >Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. You're openly supporting Trump. With his track record, and his lack of any sort of care about actual facts, are you really surprised? Can you point to a single major stance of his that isn't xenophobic (and that's a best case scenario), or actually supported by facts? So far he's all bluster, a total dick (which I get why people like that sort of thing), and a whiny little bitch whenever someone doesn't sing his praises. That's been his M.O. since he announced his presidency, and it has no signs of changing. So please, enlighten us as to why this guy isn't total scum.","human_ref_B":"> In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. What America should be doing is making American workers more competitive in the international marketplace. That's the long term solution if the US wants to remain a superpower. Donald Trump's strategy is to stop anyone with cheaper or higher quality goods from being able to sell products in the US. It's a short term solution that relies on America's fear rather than it's optimism. One way of doing that is to make American employees more skilled. For example, the US has the money to invest in teaching everyone how to code. Coding is to 2017 as literacy was to 1817. At that time, most Americans were farmers and the jobs that people do now didn't even exist then. Even the most menial service job today requires people to know how to read and do basic math. Coding would represent the same type of growth. Another way to make American employees better is to encourage Americans to go abroad. In the US, a person who can read, write, and do basic math at the high school level is qualified for only menial jobs. But they are more skilled that hundreds of millions of people abroad. They are competing for the same jobs as people who are illiterate. What Americans should be doing is going abroad to start their own businesses and hiring those unskilled workers to do basic things for them. Instead of becoming capitalists, they are trying to compete as labor despite being significantly overqualified. Donald Trump is trying to preserve an old way of life even though the conditions that made it possible doesn't exist anymore. The 1950's US was successful because factories were brand new developments, and there was no competition from Europe, which was razed to the ground during WWII, or the rest of the world, which was limited due to colonialism. Today, Europe is highly developed, and the fastest growing economies in the world are India and China. Donald Trump's strategy only works if the US is willing to only trade with the US. The problem with this is that the US's growth rate is much slower than other countries. You can't sell cars to Americans who already own cars. You can sell them to Indians and Chinese people who have never owned a car before. If you cut out buying products from abroad, you also make it difficult to sell abroad too. If the US is the only large economy in the world, then Trump's strategy works. The problem is that soon the US won't be the only large economy. All the cool stuff Americans love like big militaries, missions to the moon, entitlement programs, etc. all rely on massive economic growth. If the US has less money in the long term, which every economist from liberals like Paul Krugman to conservatives like Milton Friedman predict will happen if the US shifts away from free trade, it won't be able to afford everything that makes America great. In short, Trump is prioritizing short term rewards over long term growth. It's the economic equivalent of eating pizza and drinking beer instead of going to the gym and lifting weights. It'll make people happy in the short term, but also make them fat and weak in the long term. India, China, and the rest of the world are getting more and more rich and powerful every day. There are simply too many people there for it not to happen. If the US refuses to invest in emerging markets today, it will get bowled over in the future. And as those countries become the largest economies in the world, they will have the cash and clout to become the most powerful countries in the world too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4570.0,"score_ratio":3.0164835165} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4kx66","c_root_id_B":"dd4gi9j","created_at_utc_A":1485830116,"created_at_utc_B":1485824627,"score_A":549,"score_B":156,"human_ref_A":">The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Please state one of his positions that are generally logical and well reasoned. Cause as far as I can tell, it's none. When talking about the height of his wall, he even disproved himself in his own logic. There's zero evidence for his xenophobia of immigrants or refugees. Of the more than 750k refugees admitted to the US since 9\/11, 3 have been arrested for terrorism related charges, and not a single person has been killed under the guise of terrorism from those 3. There's zero evidence there was ever a plan to get Mexico to pay for a wall. There's zero evidence for the grand majority of the things he said on the campaign trail. Hell, he flip-flopped on his positions 141 times during the campaign...up until July of last year. So please, tell us just one of his spectrum of opinions you felt was logical or well reasoned. And then maybe we can show you the error in your ways. >Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. You mean the situation that's happening in Europe...and not the US? He's creating a problem that doesn't exist, and then is going to take credit for fixing it. This problem exists in Europe because they share a land boarder with the country with the refugee crisis, which is something the US doesn't have. The only way for those refugees to get over here is by plane, which can't happen unless they're allowed access, which can't happen until they go through the appropriate screening for refugees, which is the highest level of vetting the US currently has, which takes on average 2 years to complete. So, please, enlighten us as to how what's happening in Europe has any play in the US when it comes to refugees. If refugees are so terrifying, then why is it twice as likely to be killed by a homegrown white supremacist or antigovernment fanatic than a muslim terrorist? Facts suck for Trump. >...while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I don't think you were listening properly. That was what Trump was doing the majority of his campaign. I'm not going to bother citing that, as he's a whiny little bitch, and a quick google will show that he spent more time bitching about people disagreeing with him than actually talking about policy. >The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. Because people fought against him! The executive order specifically targeted these individuals as well, and it wasn't until the courts took him to task and declared it unconstitutional that it was \"solved.\" I use quotes because there's still people being denied access to the US who should still be allowed to enter, which means it's far from solved. What's more, Trump has decided to use alt-facts to say that any disruption in airports this weekend wasn't from his policy, but from a Delta outage....despite disruption starting on Saturday, and the outage being on Sunday. >In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. We already are. You're talking as if the refugee program doesn't exist, or we don't vet the people who come into the country. We do. Extensively. And we have. This isn't a new problem that requires brand new solutions - it's an old problem we have a pretty good tackle on already, but fuck facts. >I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. So a wall is both a good idea because it does something, but nothing in particular? That makes zero sense. And the cost is far from minimal - we're talking tens of billions of dollars just to build it, plus a few billion annually to maintain it. And that's not even counting the cost for border guards to patrol it all. Fuck all if Mexico's going to pay for it. That was a shitty campaign promise that Trump has zero authority to uphold, and it's already put relations with Mexico at an all time low. The words \"lowest since the Mexican American War\" really suck when it's coming from one of our closest trading partners. Really doesn't bode well for the US, especially when we'd need Mexico on board with us if we want to renegotiate NAFTA. >I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. Citation needed. You feel. That's not proof. >...overall trade between the three NAFTA partners \u2014 the U.S., Canada and Mexico \u2014 has increased sharply over the pact\u2019s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. Now that's getting towards some level of proof. Free trade minimizes costs for the average american, which means things cost less, which means that the average american can buy more things. This has only improved since NAFTA was signed. Or we could get rid of such trade deals, implement tariffs, and then pass that cost off to the average American. I'm sure that'll bring back the autoworker jobs, despite those being in a decline since before NAFTA (because of the low quality of american cars compared to foreign competition...something that still holds up today), or the factory jobs that have been replaced by automation over the last few decades. >As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. This isn't 1946. The US can't just act unilaterally. We need allies, and international partners. Trump is already hurting our ties with our closest allies. There's a petition with over a million signatures in the UK asking the government to not allow Trump into the country. We're reliant on the UK (and other countries) to get things done internationally, either through military means, or politically through the UN. We're fighting against Russia and China on many different fronts, in terms of trade and influence, and not necessarily through open military might. Trump puts that at risk. Not only that, but Trump just this weekend removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Security Counsel, and instead puts his ~~head of propaganda~~ senior adviser (yes, I'm biased against Trump), Bannon, as a permanent member. >I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. Really? Despite him claiming numerous times otherwise on the campaign trail? He wants to go to war with ISIS. Period. > but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. So berating a gold star family for a solid two weeks for speaking out against him isn't cruel or vindictive? How about how he'll jump at any opportunity to talk poorly about his detractors (not citing because it's so rampant, just google). Or Rosie O'donnel (http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/08\/07\/politics\/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud\/). Or Megyn Kelly? Did you even listen to the guy? The majority of what he said was bitching about people who talked poorly about him. He's nothing but cruel or vindictive. >Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. You're openly supporting Trump. With his track record, and his lack of any sort of care about actual facts, are you really surprised? Can you point to a single major stance of his that isn't xenophobic (and that's a best case scenario), or actually supported by facts? So far he's all bluster, a total dick (which I get why people like that sort of thing), and a whiny little bitch whenever someone doesn't sing his praises. That's been his M.O. since he announced his presidency, and it has no signs of changing. So please, enlighten us as to why this guy isn't total scum.","human_ref_B":"For the love of god. First Bush the younger goes to town in the middle east and destabilizes the region for a generation. Then when the refugees start to flow it's suddenly not America's problem anymore? America, more than any other country in the world, has a responsibility to mitigate the suffering in Syria. It was the prime mover of that shit show, and the country should own the mess. Now, the above is a moral argument. There is also one rooted in real politic. The ban on travel from muslim countries is not only a dick move of elephantine proportions, it's is counterproductive in meeting its stated objective: keeping America safe. First, it is an excellent recruiting point for Islamic Radicals, who can now rightly point to the fact that the American administration is discriminating against its Muslim brothers. Second, it weakens the position of our regional allies, who are now even more isolated and on the defensive in their own countries Third, it will hurt the economies of these countries (just as Trump's idiotic threat of a trade war), further fanning the flames of extremism. And don't get me started on the wall. The US economy WINS with the supply of low income immigrant labor. They are not taking American jobs, because there are not enough Americans willing to pick fruit and clean toilets. This blame the immigrant and create an enemy (muslims) shtick is straight out of the fascist playbook. Yes, u\/LordKX, FASCIST. Trump is a callous lunatic with no regard for the rest of the world. You can still redeem yourself, but time is running out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5489.0,"score_ratio":3.5192307692} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4fraz","c_root_id_B":"dd4kx66","created_at_utc_A":1485823665,"created_at_utc_B":1485830116,"score_A":90,"score_B":549,"human_ref_A":"> In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. They were given visas by the government, so there is some reasonable expectations to be allowed to enter. > but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. How is it being smart when you explicitly say no to everyone except for this specific religion (christians)? Why is automatically helping christains are automatically smart and not everyone else? > However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. The big danger is that the wall revenue source will continue after the wall is paid and the plan is that Americans will first pay for it. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Right now it looks like we are headed to a trade war with China and Mexico would raise the price of goods in the US. So higher prices at Walmart will just hurt Americans.","human_ref_B":">The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Please state one of his positions that are generally logical and well reasoned. Cause as far as I can tell, it's none. When talking about the height of his wall, he even disproved himself in his own logic. There's zero evidence for his xenophobia of immigrants or refugees. Of the more than 750k refugees admitted to the US since 9\/11, 3 have been arrested for terrorism related charges, and not a single person has been killed under the guise of terrorism from those 3. There's zero evidence there was ever a plan to get Mexico to pay for a wall. There's zero evidence for the grand majority of the things he said on the campaign trail. Hell, he flip-flopped on his positions 141 times during the campaign...up until July of last year. So please, tell us just one of his spectrum of opinions you felt was logical or well reasoned. And then maybe we can show you the error in your ways. >Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. You mean the situation that's happening in Europe...and not the US? He's creating a problem that doesn't exist, and then is going to take credit for fixing it. This problem exists in Europe because they share a land boarder with the country with the refugee crisis, which is something the US doesn't have. The only way for those refugees to get over here is by plane, which can't happen unless they're allowed access, which can't happen until they go through the appropriate screening for refugees, which is the highest level of vetting the US currently has, which takes on average 2 years to complete. So, please, enlighten us as to how what's happening in Europe has any play in the US when it comes to refugees. If refugees are so terrifying, then why is it twice as likely to be killed by a homegrown white supremacist or antigovernment fanatic than a muslim terrorist? Facts suck for Trump. >...while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I don't think you were listening properly. That was what Trump was doing the majority of his campaign. I'm not going to bother citing that, as he's a whiny little bitch, and a quick google will show that he spent more time bitching about people disagreeing with him than actually talking about policy. >The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. Because people fought against him! The executive order specifically targeted these individuals as well, and it wasn't until the courts took him to task and declared it unconstitutional that it was \"solved.\" I use quotes because there's still people being denied access to the US who should still be allowed to enter, which means it's far from solved. What's more, Trump has decided to use alt-facts to say that any disruption in airports this weekend wasn't from his policy, but from a Delta outage....despite disruption starting on Saturday, and the outage being on Sunday. >In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. We already are. You're talking as if the refugee program doesn't exist, or we don't vet the people who come into the country. We do. Extensively. And we have. This isn't a new problem that requires brand new solutions - it's an old problem we have a pretty good tackle on already, but fuck facts. >I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. So a wall is both a good idea because it does something, but nothing in particular? That makes zero sense. And the cost is far from minimal - we're talking tens of billions of dollars just to build it, plus a few billion annually to maintain it. And that's not even counting the cost for border guards to patrol it all. Fuck all if Mexico's going to pay for it. That was a shitty campaign promise that Trump has zero authority to uphold, and it's already put relations with Mexico at an all time low. The words \"lowest since the Mexican American War\" really suck when it's coming from one of our closest trading partners. Really doesn't bode well for the US, especially when we'd need Mexico on board with us if we want to renegotiate NAFTA. >I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. Citation needed. You feel. That's not proof. >...overall trade between the three NAFTA partners \u2014 the U.S., Canada and Mexico \u2014 has increased sharply over the pact\u2019s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. Now that's getting towards some level of proof. Free trade minimizes costs for the average american, which means things cost less, which means that the average american can buy more things. This has only improved since NAFTA was signed. Or we could get rid of such trade deals, implement tariffs, and then pass that cost off to the average American. I'm sure that'll bring back the autoworker jobs, despite those being in a decline since before NAFTA (because of the low quality of american cars compared to foreign competition...something that still holds up today), or the factory jobs that have been replaced by automation over the last few decades. >As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. This isn't 1946. The US can't just act unilaterally. We need allies, and international partners. Trump is already hurting our ties with our closest allies. There's a petition with over a million signatures in the UK asking the government to not allow Trump into the country. We're reliant on the UK (and other countries) to get things done internationally, either through military means, or politically through the UN. We're fighting against Russia and China on many different fronts, in terms of trade and influence, and not necessarily through open military might. Trump puts that at risk. Not only that, but Trump just this weekend removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Security Counsel, and instead puts his ~~head of propaganda~~ senior adviser (yes, I'm biased against Trump), Bannon, as a permanent member. >I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. Really? Despite him claiming numerous times otherwise on the campaign trail? He wants to go to war with ISIS. Period. > but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. So berating a gold star family for a solid two weeks for speaking out against him isn't cruel or vindictive? How about how he'll jump at any opportunity to talk poorly about his detractors (not citing because it's so rampant, just google). Or Rosie O'donnel (http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/08\/07\/politics\/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud\/). Or Megyn Kelly? Did you even listen to the guy? The majority of what he said was bitching about people who talked poorly about him. He's nothing but cruel or vindictive. >Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. You're openly supporting Trump. With his track record, and his lack of any sort of care about actual facts, are you really surprised? Can you point to a single major stance of his that isn't xenophobic (and that's a best case scenario), or actually supported by facts? So far he's all bluster, a total dick (which I get why people like that sort of thing), and a whiny little bitch whenever someone doesn't sing his praises. That's been his M.O. since he announced his presidency, and it has no signs of changing. So please, enlighten us as to why this guy isn't total scum.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6451.0,"score_ratio":6.1} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4kx66","c_root_id_B":"dd4h1nh","created_at_utc_A":1485830116,"created_at_utc_B":1485825295,"score_A":549,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":">The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Please state one of his positions that are generally logical and well reasoned. Cause as far as I can tell, it's none. When talking about the height of his wall, he even disproved himself in his own logic. There's zero evidence for his xenophobia of immigrants or refugees. Of the more than 750k refugees admitted to the US since 9\/11, 3 have been arrested for terrorism related charges, and not a single person has been killed under the guise of terrorism from those 3. There's zero evidence there was ever a plan to get Mexico to pay for a wall. There's zero evidence for the grand majority of the things he said on the campaign trail. Hell, he flip-flopped on his positions 141 times during the campaign...up until July of last year. So please, tell us just one of his spectrum of opinions you felt was logical or well reasoned. And then maybe we can show you the error in your ways. >Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. You mean the situation that's happening in Europe...and not the US? He's creating a problem that doesn't exist, and then is going to take credit for fixing it. This problem exists in Europe because they share a land boarder with the country with the refugee crisis, which is something the US doesn't have. The only way for those refugees to get over here is by plane, which can't happen unless they're allowed access, which can't happen until they go through the appropriate screening for refugees, which is the highest level of vetting the US currently has, which takes on average 2 years to complete. So, please, enlighten us as to how what's happening in Europe has any play in the US when it comes to refugees. If refugees are so terrifying, then why is it twice as likely to be killed by a homegrown white supremacist or antigovernment fanatic than a muslim terrorist? Facts suck for Trump. >...while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I don't think you were listening properly. That was what Trump was doing the majority of his campaign. I'm not going to bother citing that, as he's a whiny little bitch, and a quick google will show that he spent more time bitching about people disagreeing with him than actually talking about policy. >The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. Because people fought against him! The executive order specifically targeted these individuals as well, and it wasn't until the courts took him to task and declared it unconstitutional that it was \"solved.\" I use quotes because there's still people being denied access to the US who should still be allowed to enter, which means it's far from solved. What's more, Trump has decided to use alt-facts to say that any disruption in airports this weekend wasn't from his policy, but from a Delta outage....despite disruption starting on Saturday, and the outage being on Sunday. >In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. We already are. You're talking as if the refugee program doesn't exist, or we don't vet the people who come into the country. We do. Extensively. And we have. This isn't a new problem that requires brand new solutions - it's an old problem we have a pretty good tackle on already, but fuck facts. >I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. So a wall is both a good idea because it does something, but nothing in particular? That makes zero sense. And the cost is far from minimal - we're talking tens of billions of dollars just to build it, plus a few billion annually to maintain it. And that's not even counting the cost for border guards to patrol it all. Fuck all if Mexico's going to pay for it. That was a shitty campaign promise that Trump has zero authority to uphold, and it's already put relations with Mexico at an all time low. The words \"lowest since the Mexican American War\" really suck when it's coming from one of our closest trading partners. Really doesn't bode well for the US, especially when we'd need Mexico on board with us if we want to renegotiate NAFTA. >I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. Citation needed. You feel. That's not proof. >...overall trade between the three NAFTA partners \u2014 the U.S., Canada and Mexico \u2014 has increased sharply over the pact\u2019s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. Now that's getting towards some level of proof. Free trade minimizes costs for the average american, which means things cost less, which means that the average american can buy more things. This has only improved since NAFTA was signed. Or we could get rid of such trade deals, implement tariffs, and then pass that cost off to the average American. I'm sure that'll bring back the autoworker jobs, despite those being in a decline since before NAFTA (because of the low quality of american cars compared to foreign competition...something that still holds up today), or the factory jobs that have been replaced by automation over the last few decades. >As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. This isn't 1946. The US can't just act unilaterally. We need allies, and international partners. Trump is already hurting our ties with our closest allies. There's a petition with over a million signatures in the UK asking the government to not allow Trump into the country. We're reliant on the UK (and other countries) to get things done internationally, either through military means, or politically through the UN. We're fighting against Russia and China on many different fronts, in terms of trade and influence, and not necessarily through open military might. Trump puts that at risk. Not only that, but Trump just this weekend removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Security Counsel, and instead puts his ~~head of propaganda~~ senior adviser (yes, I'm biased against Trump), Bannon, as a permanent member. >I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. Really? Despite him claiming numerous times otherwise on the campaign trail? He wants to go to war with ISIS. Period. > but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. So berating a gold star family for a solid two weeks for speaking out against him isn't cruel or vindictive? How about how he'll jump at any opportunity to talk poorly about his detractors (not citing because it's so rampant, just google). Or Rosie O'donnel (http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/08\/07\/politics\/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud\/). Or Megyn Kelly? Did you even listen to the guy? The majority of what he said was bitching about people who talked poorly about him. He's nothing but cruel or vindictive. >Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. You're openly supporting Trump. With his track record, and his lack of any sort of care about actual facts, are you really surprised? Can you point to a single major stance of his that isn't xenophobic (and that's a best case scenario), or actually supported by facts? So far he's all bluster, a total dick (which I get why people like that sort of thing), and a whiny little bitch whenever someone doesn't sing his praises. That's been his M.O. since he announced his presidency, and it has no signs of changing. So please, enlighten us as to why this guy isn't total scum.","human_ref_B":"> I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. \u00a0 If Trump had literally any other role in society, sure, look past his flaws.\u00a0 But he\u2019s not just some joe-schmoe, he\u2019s the fucking president of our country.\u00a0 You\u2019re letting his worst flaws represent you and your country, so I don\u2019t think those flaws should be so casually forgiven, nor do I think your respect should be so easily handed over to him.\u00a0 Come on, you\u2019re better than that and America is better than that. \u00a0 > Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. \u00a0 You are admitting that you think this policy will be ineffectual, but you admire that he is showing \u201ccommitment\u201d.\u00a0 Both you and our country deserve better than ineffectual commitments.\u00a0 \u00a0 > The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. \u00a0 Again, you seem to recognize here that Trump fucked up.\u00a0 Why is that so easy for you to shrug off?\u00a0 \u00a0 > I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. \u00a0 Again, you are praising Trump for proposing an ineffective solution to a problem.\u00a0 He\u2019s our *president*, feel free to hold him to a higher standard! \u00a0 > I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.\u00a0 \u00a0 Even if you have the knowledge of global economics to support your claim that free trade deals are a problem, you just admitted that Trump doesn\u2019t have you convinced that he can do anything about it.\u00a0 Why support him then? \u00a0 > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. \u00a0 Here, you are basically bragging that Trump\u2019s embarrassing buffoonery is okay because it won\u2019t end up triggering World War III.\u00a0 Why are your standards so insanely low?!\u00a0 \u00a0 > Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. \u00a0 So as long as a candidate isn\u2019t a complete fucking psychopath, you are okay with them \u00a0 \u00a0 > If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained. I hope I wasn't too un-civil, but honestly I will never understand Trump supporters.\u00a0 Even if you set aside all of his policies (which is a HUGE set-aside, by the way, his policies scare the shit out of me!), there is still the fact that our country is now represented by a fat orange retard.\u00a0 Did you ever learn about past Presidents in grade school?\u00a0 Do you remember anything about Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or hell, even Ronald Reagan?\u00a0 You really think Trump is worthy of standing next to them and upholding their legacy?\u00a0 As a conservative, you could have gone with **literally any other fucking candidate** and I would have at least *respected* them as my president, but not Trump.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4821.0,"score_ratio":8.4461538462} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4kx66","c_root_id_B":"dd4fej9","created_at_utc_A":1485830116,"created_at_utc_B":1485823220,"score_A":549,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":">The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Please state one of his positions that are generally logical and well reasoned. Cause as far as I can tell, it's none. When talking about the height of his wall, he even disproved himself in his own logic. There's zero evidence for his xenophobia of immigrants or refugees. Of the more than 750k refugees admitted to the US since 9\/11, 3 have been arrested for terrorism related charges, and not a single person has been killed under the guise of terrorism from those 3. There's zero evidence there was ever a plan to get Mexico to pay for a wall. There's zero evidence for the grand majority of the things he said on the campaign trail. Hell, he flip-flopped on his positions 141 times during the campaign...up until July of last year. So please, tell us just one of his spectrum of opinions you felt was logical or well reasoned. And then maybe we can show you the error in your ways. >Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. You mean the situation that's happening in Europe...and not the US? He's creating a problem that doesn't exist, and then is going to take credit for fixing it. This problem exists in Europe because they share a land boarder with the country with the refugee crisis, which is something the US doesn't have. The only way for those refugees to get over here is by plane, which can't happen unless they're allowed access, which can't happen until they go through the appropriate screening for refugees, which is the highest level of vetting the US currently has, which takes on average 2 years to complete. So, please, enlighten us as to how what's happening in Europe has any play in the US when it comes to refugees. If refugees are so terrifying, then why is it twice as likely to be killed by a homegrown white supremacist or antigovernment fanatic than a muslim terrorist? Facts suck for Trump. >...while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I don't think you were listening properly. That was what Trump was doing the majority of his campaign. I'm not going to bother citing that, as he's a whiny little bitch, and a quick google will show that he spent more time bitching about people disagreeing with him than actually talking about policy. >The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. Because people fought against him! The executive order specifically targeted these individuals as well, and it wasn't until the courts took him to task and declared it unconstitutional that it was \"solved.\" I use quotes because there's still people being denied access to the US who should still be allowed to enter, which means it's far from solved. What's more, Trump has decided to use alt-facts to say that any disruption in airports this weekend wasn't from his policy, but from a Delta outage....despite disruption starting on Saturday, and the outage being on Sunday. >In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. We already are. You're talking as if the refugee program doesn't exist, or we don't vet the people who come into the country. We do. Extensively. And we have. This isn't a new problem that requires brand new solutions - it's an old problem we have a pretty good tackle on already, but fuck facts. >I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. So a wall is both a good idea because it does something, but nothing in particular? That makes zero sense. And the cost is far from minimal - we're talking tens of billions of dollars just to build it, plus a few billion annually to maintain it. And that's not even counting the cost for border guards to patrol it all. Fuck all if Mexico's going to pay for it. That was a shitty campaign promise that Trump has zero authority to uphold, and it's already put relations with Mexico at an all time low. The words \"lowest since the Mexican American War\" really suck when it's coming from one of our closest trading partners. Really doesn't bode well for the US, especially when we'd need Mexico on board with us if we want to renegotiate NAFTA. >I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. Citation needed. You feel. That's not proof. >...overall trade between the three NAFTA partners \u2014 the U.S., Canada and Mexico \u2014 has increased sharply over the pact\u2019s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. Now that's getting towards some level of proof. Free trade minimizes costs for the average american, which means things cost less, which means that the average american can buy more things. This has only improved since NAFTA was signed. Or we could get rid of such trade deals, implement tariffs, and then pass that cost off to the average American. I'm sure that'll bring back the autoworker jobs, despite those being in a decline since before NAFTA (because of the low quality of american cars compared to foreign competition...something that still holds up today), or the factory jobs that have been replaced by automation over the last few decades. >As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. This isn't 1946. The US can't just act unilaterally. We need allies, and international partners. Trump is already hurting our ties with our closest allies. There's a petition with over a million signatures in the UK asking the government to not allow Trump into the country. We're reliant on the UK (and other countries) to get things done internationally, either through military means, or politically through the UN. We're fighting against Russia and China on many different fronts, in terms of trade and influence, and not necessarily through open military might. Trump puts that at risk. Not only that, but Trump just this weekend removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Security Counsel, and instead puts his ~~head of propaganda~~ senior adviser (yes, I'm biased against Trump), Bannon, as a permanent member. >I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. Really? Despite him claiming numerous times otherwise on the campaign trail? He wants to go to war with ISIS. Period. > but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. So berating a gold star family for a solid two weeks for speaking out against him isn't cruel or vindictive? How about how he'll jump at any opportunity to talk poorly about his detractors (not citing because it's so rampant, just google). Or Rosie O'donnel (http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/08\/07\/politics\/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud\/). Or Megyn Kelly? Did you even listen to the guy? The majority of what he said was bitching about people who talked poorly about him. He's nothing but cruel or vindictive. >Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. You're openly supporting Trump. With his track record, and his lack of any sort of care about actual facts, are you really surprised? Can you point to a single major stance of his that isn't xenophobic (and that's a best case scenario), or actually supported by facts? So far he's all bluster, a total dick (which I get why people like that sort of thing), and a whiny little bitch whenever someone doesn't sing his praises. That's been his M.O. since he announced his presidency, and it has no signs of changing. So please, enlighten us as to why this guy isn't total scum.","human_ref_B":">However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. I can't imagine where you're coming from on this one. Probably the one consistent thing I've heard about the wall is how expensive it will be. From his executive order on the wall, >The executive orders Trump signed Wednesday call for boosting the ranks of Border Patrol forces by an additional 5,000 agents as well as for 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to carry out deportations. Not even taking the construction of a wall into consideration, that's 15,000 new full time employees. The average salary of a Border Patrol Officer *last year* was about $80,000. Fifteen-thousand people being paid an average annual salary of eighty-thousand dollars **will cost American taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars every year**. And that's just the costs of employing people! No construction whatsoever. That doesn't even represent the cost of hiring *construction workers*. So where you get the idea that this will be anything short of hugely expensive, I don't know. ***************** Other than that, if you see Trump and aren't *repulsed* by how sleazy and awful he is then I don't think I can change that. This slew of executive orders is emblematic of his anti-democratic style. They were unilateral rather than deliberative. They went through zero legal review process. All this bullshit with green cards could have been solved beforehand if Trump had even the slightest respect for the opinion of others. You can go on and on with this guy. He openly advocates for torture. He wants to turn the country into a nation of torturers. I don't think he should be impeached in his first weeks, but it's going to happen the way he's heading.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6896.0,"score_ratio":9.8035714286} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4kx66","c_root_id_B":"dd4hng2","created_at_utc_A":1485830116,"created_at_utc_B":1485826056,"score_A":549,"score_B":46,"human_ref_A":">The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Please state one of his positions that are generally logical and well reasoned. Cause as far as I can tell, it's none. When talking about the height of his wall, he even disproved himself in his own logic. There's zero evidence for his xenophobia of immigrants or refugees. Of the more than 750k refugees admitted to the US since 9\/11, 3 have been arrested for terrorism related charges, and not a single person has been killed under the guise of terrorism from those 3. There's zero evidence there was ever a plan to get Mexico to pay for a wall. There's zero evidence for the grand majority of the things he said on the campaign trail. Hell, he flip-flopped on his positions 141 times during the campaign...up until July of last year. So please, tell us just one of his spectrum of opinions you felt was logical or well reasoned. And then maybe we can show you the error in your ways. >Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. You mean the situation that's happening in Europe...and not the US? He's creating a problem that doesn't exist, and then is going to take credit for fixing it. This problem exists in Europe because they share a land boarder with the country with the refugee crisis, which is something the US doesn't have. The only way for those refugees to get over here is by plane, which can't happen unless they're allowed access, which can't happen until they go through the appropriate screening for refugees, which is the highest level of vetting the US currently has, which takes on average 2 years to complete. So, please, enlighten us as to how what's happening in Europe has any play in the US when it comes to refugees. If refugees are so terrifying, then why is it twice as likely to be killed by a homegrown white supremacist or antigovernment fanatic than a muslim terrorist? Facts suck for Trump. >...while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I don't think you were listening properly. That was what Trump was doing the majority of his campaign. I'm not going to bother citing that, as he's a whiny little bitch, and a quick google will show that he spent more time bitching about people disagreeing with him than actually talking about policy. >The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. Because people fought against him! The executive order specifically targeted these individuals as well, and it wasn't until the courts took him to task and declared it unconstitutional that it was \"solved.\" I use quotes because there's still people being denied access to the US who should still be allowed to enter, which means it's far from solved. What's more, Trump has decided to use alt-facts to say that any disruption in airports this weekend wasn't from his policy, but from a Delta outage....despite disruption starting on Saturday, and the outage being on Sunday. >In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. We already are. You're talking as if the refugee program doesn't exist, or we don't vet the people who come into the country. We do. Extensively. And we have. This isn't a new problem that requires brand new solutions - it's an old problem we have a pretty good tackle on already, but fuck facts. >I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. So a wall is both a good idea because it does something, but nothing in particular? That makes zero sense. And the cost is far from minimal - we're talking tens of billions of dollars just to build it, plus a few billion annually to maintain it. And that's not even counting the cost for border guards to patrol it all. Fuck all if Mexico's going to pay for it. That was a shitty campaign promise that Trump has zero authority to uphold, and it's already put relations with Mexico at an all time low. The words \"lowest since the Mexican American War\" really suck when it's coming from one of our closest trading partners. Really doesn't bode well for the US, especially when we'd need Mexico on board with us if we want to renegotiate NAFTA. >I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. Citation needed. You feel. That's not proof. >...overall trade between the three NAFTA partners \u2014 the U.S., Canada and Mexico \u2014 has increased sharply over the pact\u2019s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. Now that's getting towards some level of proof. Free trade minimizes costs for the average american, which means things cost less, which means that the average american can buy more things. This has only improved since NAFTA was signed. Or we could get rid of such trade deals, implement tariffs, and then pass that cost off to the average American. I'm sure that'll bring back the autoworker jobs, despite those being in a decline since before NAFTA (because of the low quality of american cars compared to foreign competition...something that still holds up today), or the factory jobs that have been replaced by automation over the last few decades. >As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. This isn't 1946. The US can't just act unilaterally. We need allies, and international partners. Trump is already hurting our ties with our closest allies. There's a petition with over a million signatures in the UK asking the government to not allow Trump into the country. We're reliant on the UK (and other countries) to get things done internationally, either through military means, or politically through the UN. We're fighting against Russia and China on many different fronts, in terms of trade and influence, and not necessarily through open military might. Trump puts that at risk. Not only that, but Trump just this weekend removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Security Counsel, and instead puts his ~~head of propaganda~~ senior adviser (yes, I'm biased against Trump), Bannon, as a permanent member. >I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. Really? Despite him claiming numerous times otherwise on the campaign trail? He wants to go to war with ISIS. Period. > but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. So berating a gold star family for a solid two weeks for speaking out against him isn't cruel or vindictive? How about how he'll jump at any opportunity to talk poorly about his detractors (not citing because it's so rampant, just google). Or Rosie O'donnel (http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/08\/07\/politics\/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud\/). Or Megyn Kelly? Did you even listen to the guy? The majority of what he said was bitching about people who talked poorly about him. He's nothing but cruel or vindictive. >Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. You're openly supporting Trump. With his track record, and his lack of any sort of care about actual facts, are you really surprised? Can you point to a single major stance of his that isn't xenophobic (and that's a best case scenario), or actually supported by facts? So far he's all bluster, a total dick (which I get why people like that sort of thing), and a whiny little bitch whenever someone doesn't sing his praises. That's been his M.O. since he announced his presidency, and it has no signs of changing. So please, enlighten us as to why this guy isn't total scum.","human_ref_B":"His office just made an press release about how his immigration policy made sense in light of the recent attack in Quebec. I'm in fucking quebec, and the attack was made by a white nationalist. The only muslim that was named was a witness, and ran away from the scene, that's why he was caught by police. Trump doesn't care about facts, or science, he only wants to do what he wants to do no matter how disastrous it will be for everyone else","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4060.0,"score_ratio":11.9347826087} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4f7x6","c_root_id_B":"dd4kx66","created_at_utc_A":1485822986,"created_at_utc_B":1485830116,"score_A":47,"score_B":549,"human_ref_A":"First of all, you didn't really say much in favor of Trump. Your primary arguments are mostly that he isn't that bad. > from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. Senator Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, has estimated it will cost $12-15 billion dollars, and that's probably a low estimate. > In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. Things can be done cheaper in the U.S. too, just with high-tech manufacturing with few workers. That's the way things are moving anyway. If manufacturing comes back to the U.S. it won't bring back the manufacturing jobs the U.S. had 20-30 years ago. Besides, putting up trade barriers and tariffs will lead other countries to do the same. Take Mexico. The U.S. exports $236 billion in goods to Mexico. That is put in jeopardy if a trade war ensues. Prices of goods in the U.S. go up due to the tariffs. Supply chains are disrupted. Things are messed up bigly. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. China is on the rise economically, and is one of the countries that is best positioned to take care of an isolationist United States. The U.S. is not going to be \"ignored,\" but the role of the U.S. as the clearly most powerful nation in the world is not assured.","human_ref_B":">The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Please state one of his positions that are generally logical and well reasoned. Cause as far as I can tell, it's none. When talking about the height of his wall, he even disproved himself in his own logic. There's zero evidence for his xenophobia of immigrants or refugees. Of the more than 750k refugees admitted to the US since 9\/11, 3 have been arrested for terrorism related charges, and not a single person has been killed under the guise of terrorism from those 3. There's zero evidence there was ever a plan to get Mexico to pay for a wall. There's zero evidence for the grand majority of the things he said on the campaign trail. Hell, he flip-flopped on his positions 141 times during the campaign...up until July of last year. So please, tell us just one of his spectrum of opinions you felt was logical or well reasoned. And then maybe we can show you the error in your ways. >Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. You mean the situation that's happening in Europe...and not the US? He's creating a problem that doesn't exist, and then is going to take credit for fixing it. This problem exists in Europe because they share a land boarder with the country with the refugee crisis, which is something the US doesn't have. The only way for those refugees to get over here is by plane, which can't happen unless they're allowed access, which can't happen until they go through the appropriate screening for refugees, which is the highest level of vetting the US currently has, which takes on average 2 years to complete. So, please, enlighten us as to how what's happening in Europe has any play in the US when it comes to refugees. If refugees are so terrifying, then why is it twice as likely to be killed by a homegrown white supremacist or antigovernment fanatic than a muslim terrorist? Facts suck for Trump. >...while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. I don't think you were listening properly. That was what Trump was doing the majority of his campaign. I'm not going to bother citing that, as he's a whiny little bitch, and a quick google will show that he spent more time bitching about people disagreeing with him than actually talking about policy. >The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. Because people fought against him! The executive order specifically targeted these individuals as well, and it wasn't until the courts took him to task and declared it unconstitutional that it was \"solved.\" I use quotes because there's still people being denied access to the US who should still be allowed to enter, which means it's far from solved. What's more, Trump has decided to use alt-facts to say that any disruption in airports this weekend wasn't from his policy, but from a Delta outage....despite disruption starting on Saturday, and the outage being on Sunday. >In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. We already are. You're talking as if the refugee program doesn't exist, or we don't vet the people who come into the country. We do. Extensively. And we have. This isn't a new problem that requires brand new solutions - it's an old problem we have a pretty good tackle on already, but fuck facts. >I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. So a wall is both a good idea because it does something, but nothing in particular? That makes zero sense. And the cost is far from minimal - we're talking tens of billions of dollars just to build it, plus a few billion annually to maintain it. And that's not even counting the cost for border guards to patrol it all. Fuck all if Mexico's going to pay for it. That was a shitty campaign promise that Trump has zero authority to uphold, and it's already put relations with Mexico at an all time low. The words \"lowest since the Mexican American War\" really suck when it's coming from one of our closest trading partners. Really doesn't bode well for the US, especially when we'd need Mexico on board with us if we want to renegotiate NAFTA. >I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. Citation needed. You feel. That's not proof. >...overall trade between the three NAFTA partners \u2014 the U.S., Canada and Mexico \u2014 has increased sharply over the pact\u2019s history, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016. Cross-border investment has also surged during those years, as the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose from $15 billion to more than $107.8 billion in 2014. As for job growth, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, six million U.S. jobs depend on U.S. trade with Mexico, a flow that has been greatly facilitated by NAFTA, which has helped eliminate costly tariff and non-tariff barriers. Now that's getting towards some level of proof. Free trade minimizes costs for the average american, which means things cost less, which means that the average american can buy more things. This has only improved since NAFTA was signed. Or we could get rid of such trade deals, implement tariffs, and then pass that cost off to the average American. I'm sure that'll bring back the autoworker jobs, despite those being in a decline since before NAFTA (because of the low quality of american cars compared to foreign competition...something that still holds up today), or the factory jobs that have been replaced by automation over the last few decades. >As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. This isn't 1946. The US can't just act unilaterally. We need allies, and international partners. Trump is already hurting our ties with our closest allies. There's a petition with over a million signatures in the UK asking the government to not allow Trump into the country. We're reliant on the UK (and other countries) to get things done internationally, either through military means, or politically through the UN. We're fighting against Russia and China on many different fronts, in terms of trade and influence, and not necessarily through open military might. Trump puts that at risk. Not only that, but Trump just this weekend removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Security Counsel, and instead puts his ~~head of propaganda~~ senior adviser (yes, I'm biased against Trump), Bannon, as a permanent member. >I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. Really? Despite him claiming numerous times otherwise on the campaign trail? He wants to go to war with ISIS. Period. > but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. So berating a gold star family for a solid two weeks for speaking out against him isn't cruel or vindictive? How about how he'll jump at any opportunity to talk poorly about his detractors (not citing because it's so rampant, just google). Or Rosie O'donnel (http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/08\/07\/politics\/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud\/). Or Megyn Kelly? Did you even listen to the guy? The majority of what he said was bitching about people who talked poorly about him. He's nothing but cruel or vindictive. >Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. You're openly supporting Trump. With his track record, and his lack of any sort of care about actual facts, are you really surprised? Can you point to a single major stance of his that isn't xenophobic (and that's a best case scenario), or actually supported by facts? So far he's all bluster, a total dick (which I get why people like that sort of thing), and a whiny little bitch whenever someone doesn't sing his praises. That's been his M.O. since he announced his presidency, and it has no signs of changing. So please, enlighten us as to why this guy isn't total scum.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7130.0,"score_ratio":11.6808510638} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4h8um","c_root_id_B":"dd4lxxo","created_at_utc_A":1485825546,"created_at_utc_B":1485831364,"score_A":182,"score_B":341,"human_ref_A":"> In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. What America should be doing is making American workers more competitive in the international marketplace. That's the long term solution if the US wants to remain a superpower. Donald Trump's strategy is to stop anyone with cheaper or higher quality goods from being able to sell products in the US. It's a short term solution that relies on America's fear rather than it's optimism. One way of doing that is to make American employees more skilled. For example, the US has the money to invest in teaching everyone how to code. Coding is to 2017 as literacy was to 1817. At that time, most Americans were farmers and the jobs that people do now didn't even exist then. Even the most menial service job today requires people to know how to read and do basic math. Coding would represent the same type of growth. Another way to make American employees better is to encourage Americans to go abroad. In the US, a person who can read, write, and do basic math at the high school level is qualified for only menial jobs. But they are more skilled that hundreds of millions of people abroad. They are competing for the same jobs as people who are illiterate. What Americans should be doing is going abroad to start their own businesses and hiring those unskilled workers to do basic things for them. Instead of becoming capitalists, they are trying to compete as labor despite being significantly overqualified. Donald Trump is trying to preserve an old way of life even though the conditions that made it possible doesn't exist anymore. The 1950's US was successful because factories were brand new developments, and there was no competition from Europe, which was razed to the ground during WWII, or the rest of the world, which was limited due to colonialism. Today, Europe is highly developed, and the fastest growing economies in the world are India and China. Donald Trump's strategy only works if the US is willing to only trade with the US. The problem with this is that the US's growth rate is much slower than other countries. You can't sell cars to Americans who already own cars. You can sell them to Indians and Chinese people who have never owned a car before. If you cut out buying products from abroad, you also make it difficult to sell abroad too. If the US is the only large economy in the world, then Trump's strategy works. The problem is that soon the US won't be the only large economy. All the cool stuff Americans love like big militaries, missions to the moon, entitlement programs, etc. all rely on massive economic growth. If the US has less money in the long term, which every economist from liberals like Paul Krugman to conservatives like Milton Friedman predict will happen if the US shifts away from free trade, it won't be able to afford everything that makes America great. In short, Trump is prioritizing short term rewards over long term growth. It's the economic equivalent of eating pizza and drinking beer instead of going to the gym and lifting weights. It'll make people happy in the short term, but also make them fat and weak in the long term. India, China, and the rest of the world are getting more and more rich and powerful every day. There are simply too many people there for it not to happen. If the US refuses to invest in emerging markets today, it will get bowled over in the future. And as those countries become the largest economies in the world, they will have the cash and clout to become the most powerful countries in the world too.","human_ref_B":"Can I ask, why do you support Trump? What specific policies of his do you actually like and want to see enacted? What proposals of his do you think will actually be effective and helpful? On immigration and the wall, you say that you don't think either will really do anything. On bringing back jobs, you say that Trump will be unsuccessful because of cheap foreign labor. On diplomacy and military power, your only point seems to be that Trump won't start any wars (which is good but that seems like the bare minimum you'd want from a president). None of this sounds like support, it just sounds like you're open to waiting and seeing if he succeeds. You haven't listed anything you actively like or hope for from him. In my mind, to be a supporter you have to actively want and advocate for certain policies of your candidate to succeed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5818.0,"score_ratio":1.8736263736} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4gi9j","c_root_id_B":"dd4lxxo","created_at_utc_A":1485824627,"created_at_utc_B":1485831364,"score_A":156,"score_B":341,"human_ref_A":"For the love of god. First Bush the younger goes to town in the middle east and destabilizes the region for a generation. Then when the refugees start to flow it's suddenly not America's problem anymore? America, more than any other country in the world, has a responsibility to mitigate the suffering in Syria. It was the prime mover of that shit show, and the country should own the mess. Now, the above is a moral argument. There is also one rooted in real politic. The ban on travel from muslim countries is not only a dick move of elephantine proportions, it's is counterproductive in meeting its stated objective: keeping America safe. First, it is an excellent recruiting point for Islamic Radicals, who can now rightly point to the fact that the American administration is discriminating against its Muslim brothers. Second, it weakens the position of our regional allies, who are now even more isolated and on the defensive in their own countries Third, it will hurt the economies of these countries (just as Trump's idiotic threat of a trade war), further fanning the flames of extremism. And don't get me started on the wall. The US economy WINS with the supply of low income immigrant labor. They are not taking American jobs, because there are not enough Americans willing to pick fruit and clean toilets. This blame the immigrant and create an enemy (muslims) shtick is straight out of the fascist playbook. Yes, u\/LordKX, FASCIST. Trump is a callous lunatic with no regard for the rest of the world. You can still redeem yourself, but time is running out.","human_ref_B":"Can I ask, why do you support Trump? What specific policies of his do you actually like and want to see enacted? What proposals of his do you think will actually be effective and helpful? On immigration and the wall, you say that you don't think either will really do anything. On bringing back jobs, you say that Trump will be unsuccessful because of cheap foreign labor. On diplomacy and military power, your only point seems to be that Trump won't start any wars (which is good but that seems like the bare minimum you'd want from a president). None of this sounds like support, it just sounds like you're open to waiting and seeing if he succeeds. You haven't listed anything you actively like or hope for from him. In my mind, to be a supporter you have to actively want and advocate for certain policies of your candidate to succeed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6737.0,"score_ratio":2.1858974359} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4fraz","c_root_id_B":"dd4lxxo","created_at_utc_A":1485823665,"created_at_utc_B":1485831364,"score_A":90,"score_B":341,"human_ref_A":"> In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. They were given visas by the government, so there is some reasonable expectations to be allowed to enter. > but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. How is it being smart when you explicitly say no to everyone except for this specific religion (christians)? Why is automatically helping christains are automatically smart and not everyone else? > However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. The big danger is that the wall revenue source will continue after the wall is paid and the plan is that Americans will first pay for it. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Right now it looks like we are headed to a trade war with China and Mexico would raise the price of goods in the US. So higher prices at Walmart will just hurt Americans.","human_ref_B":"Can I ask, why do you support Trump? What specific policies of his do you actually like and want to see enacted? What proposals of his do you think will actually be effective and helpful? On immigration and the wall, you say that you don't think either will really do anything. On bringing back jobs, you say that Trump will be unsuccessful because of cheap foreign labor. On diplomacy and military power, your only point seems to be that Trump won't start any wars (which is good but that seems like the bare minimum you'd want from a president). None of this sounds like support, it just sounds like you're open to waiting and seeing if he succeeds. You haven't listed anything you actively like or hope for from him. In my mind, to be a supporter you have to actively want and advocate for certain policies of your candidate to succeed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7699.0,"score_ratio":3.7888888889} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4h1nh","c_root_id_B":"dd4lxxo","created_at_utc_A":1485825295,"created_at_utc_B":1485831364,"score_A":65,"score_B":341,"human_ref_A":"> I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. \u00a0 If Trump had literally any other role in society, sure, look past his flaws.\u00a0 But he\u2019s not just some joe-schmoe, he\u2019s the fucking president of our country.\u00a0 You\u2019re letting his worst flaws represent you and your country, so I don\u2019t think those flaws should be so casually forgiven, nor do I think your respect should be so easily handed over to him.\u00a0 Come on, you\u2019re better than that and America is better than that. \u00a0 > Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. \u00a0 You are admitting that you think this policy will be ineffectual, but you admire that he is showing \u201ccommitment\u201d.\u00a0 Both you and our country deserve better than ineffectual commitments.\u00a0 \u00a0 > The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. \u00a0 Again, you seem to recognize here that Trump fucked up.\u00a0 Why is that so easy for you to shrug off?\u00a0 \u00a0 > I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. \u00a0 Again, you are praising Trump for proposing an ineffective solution to a problem.\u00a0 He\u2019s our *president*, feel free to hold him to a higher standard! \u00a0 > I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.\u00a0 \u00a0 Even if you have the knowledge of global economics to support your claim that free trade deals are a problem, you just admitted that Trump doesn\u2019t have you convinced that he can do anything about it.\u00a0 Why support him then? \u00a0 > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. \u00a0 Here, you are basically bragging that Trump\u2019s embarrassing buffoonery is okay because it won\u2019t end up triggering World War III.\u00a0 Why are your standards so insanely low?!\u00a0 \u00a0 > Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. \u00a0 So as long as a candidate isn\u2019t a complete fucking psychopath, you are okay with them \u00a0 \u00a0 > If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained. I hope I wasn't too un-civil, but honestly I will never understand Trump supporters.\u00a0 Even if you set aside all of his policies (which is a HUGE set-aside, by the way, his policies scare the shit out of me!), there is still the fact that our country is now represented by a fat orange retard.\u00a0 Did you ever learn about past Presidents in grade school?\u00a0 Do you remember anything about Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or hell, even Ronald Reagan?\u00a0 You really think Trump is worthy of standing next to them and upholding their legacy?\u00a0 As a conservative, you could have gone with **literally any other fucking candidate** and I would have at least *respected* them as my president, but not Trump.","human_ref_B":"Can I ask, why do you support Trump? What specific policies of his do you actually like and want to see enacted? What proposals of his do you think will actually be effective and helpful? On immigration and the wall, you say that you don't think either will really do anything. On bringing back jobs, you say that Trump will be unsuccessful because of cheap foreign labor. On diplomacy and military power, your only point seems to be that Trump won't start any wars (which is good but that seems like the bare minimum you'd want from a president). None of this sounds like support, it just sounds like you're open to waiting and seeing if he succeeds. You haven't listed anything you actively like or hope for from him. In my mind, to be a supporter you have to actively want and advocate for certain policies of your candidate to succeed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6069.0,"score_ratio":5.2461538462} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4fej9","c_root_id_B":"dd4lxxo","created_at_utc_A":1485823220,"created_at_utc_B":1485831364,"score_A":56,"score_B":341,"human_ref_A":">However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. I can't imagine where you're coming from on this one. Probably the one consistent thing I've heard about the wall is how expensive it will be. From his executive order on the wall, >The executive orders Trump signed Wednesday call for boosting the ranks of Border Patrol forces by an additional 5,000 agents as well as for 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to carry out deportations. Not even taking the construction of a wall into consideration, that's 15,000 new full time employees. The average salary of a Border Patrol Officer *last year* was about $80,000. Fifteen-thousand people being paid an average annual salary of eighty-thousand dollars **will cost American taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars every year**. And that's just the costs of employing people! No construction whatsoever. That doesn't even represent the cost of hiring *construction workers*. So where you get the idea that this will be anything short of hugely expensive, I don't know. ***************** Other than that, if you see Trump and aren't *repulsed* by how sleazy and awful he is then I don't think I can change that. This slew of executive orders is emblematic of his anti-democratic style. They were unilateral rather than deliberative. They went through zero legal review process. All this bullshit with green cards could have been solved beforehand if Trump had even the slightest respect for the opinion of others. You can go on and on with this guy. He openly advocates for torture. He wants to turn the country into a nation of torturers. I don't think he should be impeached in his first weeks, but it's going to happen the way he's heading.","human_ref_B":"Can I ask, why do you support Trump? What specific policies of his do you actually like and want to see enacted? What proposals of his do you think will actually be effective and helpful? On immigration and the wall, you say that you don't think either will really do anything. On bringing back jobs, you say that Trump will be unsuccessful because of cheap foreign labor. On diplomacy and military power, your only point seems to be that Trump won't start any wars (which is good but that seems like the bare minimum you'd want from a president). None of this sounds like support, it just sounds like you're open to waiting and seeing if he succeeds. You haven't listed anything you actively like or hope for from him. In my mind, to be a supporter you have to actively want and advocate for certain policies of your candidate to succeed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8144.0,"score_ratio":6.0892857143} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4lxxo","c_root_id_B":"dd4hng2","created_at_utc_A":1485831364,"created_at_utc_B":1485826056,"score_A":341,"score_B":46,"human_ref_A":"Can I ask, why do you support Trump? What specific policies of his do you actually like and want to see enacted? What proposals of his do you think will actually be effective and helpful? On immigration and the wall, you say that you don't think either will really do anything. On bringing back jobs, you say that Trump will be unsuccessful because of cheap foreign labor. On diplomacy and military power, your only point seems to be that Trump won't start any wars (which is good but that seems like the bare minimum you'd want from a president). None of this sounds like support, it just sounds like you're open to waiting and seeing if he succeeds. You haven't listed anything you actively like or hope for from him. In my mind, to be a supporter you have to actively want and advocate for certain policies of your candidate to succeed.","human_ref_B":"His office just made an press release about how his immigration policy made sense in light of the recent attack in Quebec. I'm in fucking quebec, and the attack was made by a white nationalist. The only muslim that was named was a witness, and ran away from the scene, that's why he was caught by police. Trump doesn't care about facts, or science, he only wants to do what he wants to do no matter how disastrous it will be for everyone else","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5308.0,"score_ratio":7.4130434783} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4f7x6","c_root_id_B":"dd4lxxo","created_at_utc_A":1485822986,"created_at_utc_B":1485831364,"score_A":47,"score_B":341,"human_ref_A":"First of all, you didn't really say much in favor of Trump. Your primary arguments are mostly that he isn't that bad. > from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. Senator Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, has estimated it will cost $12-15 billion dollars, and that's probably a low estimate. > In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. Things can be done cheaper in the U.S. too, just with high-tech manufacturing with few workers. That's the way things are moving anyway. If manufacturing comes back to the U.S. it won't bring back the manufacturing jobs the U.S. had 20-30 years ago. Besides, putting up trade barriers and tariffs will lead other countries to do the same. Take Mexico. The U.S. exports $236 billion in goods to Mexico. That is put in jeopardy if a trade war ensues. Prices of goods in the U.S. go up due to the tariffs. Supply chains are disrupted. Things are messed up bigly. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. China is on the rise economically, and is one of the countries that is best positioned to take care of an isolationist United States. The U.S. is not going to be \"ignored,\" but the role of the U.S. as the clearly most powerful nation in the world is not assured.","human_ref_B":"Can I ask, why do you support Trump? What specific policies of his do you actually like and want to see enacted? What proposals of his do you think will actually be effective and helpful? On immigration and the wall, you say that you don't think either will really do anything. On bringing back jobs, you say that Trump will be unsuccessful because of cheap foreign labor. On diplomacy and military power, your only point seems to be that Trump won't start any wars (which is good but that seems like the bare minimum you'd want from a president). None of this sounds like support, it just sounds like you're open to waiting and seeing if he succeeds. You haven't listed anything you actively like or hope for from him. In my mind, to be a supporter you have to actively want and advocate for certain policies of your candidate to succeed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8378.0,"score_ratio":7.2553191489} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4gi9j","c_root_id_B":"dd4h8um","created_at_utc_A":1485824627,"created_at_utc_B":1485825546,"score_A":156,"score_B":182,"human_ref_A":"For the love of god. First Bush the younger goes to town in the middle east and destabilizes the region for a generation. Then when the refugees start to flow it's suddenly not America's problem anymore? America, more than any other country in the world, has a responsibility to mitigate the suffering in Syria. It was the prime mover of that shit show, and the country should own the mess. Now, the above is a moral argument. There is also one rooted in real politic. The ban on travel from muslim countries is not only a dick move of elephantine proportions, it's is counterproductive in meeting its stated objective: keeping America safe. First, it is an excellent recruiting point for Islamic Radicals, who can now rightly point to the fact that the American administration is discriminating against its Muslim brothers. Second, it weakens the position of our regional allies, who are now even more isolated and on the defensive in their own countries Third, it will hurt the economies of these countries (just as Trump's idiotic threat of a trade war), further fanning the flames of extremism. And don't get me started on the wall. The US economy WINS with the supply of low income immigrant labor. They are not taking American jobs, because there are not enough Americans willing to pick fruit and clean toilets. This blame the immigrant and create an enemy (muslims) shtick is straight out of the fascist playbook. Yes, u\/LordKX, FASCIST. Trump is a callous lunatic with no regard for the rest of the world. You can still redeem yourself, but time is running out.","human_ref_B":"> In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. What America should be doing is making American workers more competitive in the international marketplace. That's the long term solution if the US wants to remain a superpower. Donald Trump's strategy is to stop anyone with cheaper or higher quality goods from being able to sell products in the US. It's a short term solution that relies on America's fear rather than it's optimism. One way of doing that is to make American employees more skilled. For example, the US has the money to invest in teaching everyone how to code. Coding is to 2017 as literacy was to 1817. At that time, most Americans were farmers and the jobs that people do now didn't even exist then. Even the most menial service job today requires people to know how to read and do basic math. Coding would represent the same type of growth. Another way to make American employees better is to encourage Americans to go abroad. In the US, a person who can read, write, and do basic math at the high school level is qualified for only menial jobs. But they are more skilled that hundreds of millions of people abroad. They are competing for the same jobs as people who are illiterate. What Americans should be doing is going abroad to start their own businesses and hiring those unskilled workers to do basic things for them. Instead of becoming capitalists, they are trying to compete as labor despite being significantly overqualified. Donald Trump is trying to preserve an old way of life even though the conditions that made it possible doesn't exist anymore. The 1950's US was successful because factories were brand new developments, and there was no competition from Europe, which was razed to the ground during WWII, or the rest of the world, which was limited due to colonialism. Today, Europe is highly developed, and the fastest growing economies in the world are India and China. Donald Trump's strategy only works if the US is willing to only trade with the US. The problem with this is that the US's growth rate is much slower than other countries. You can't sell cars to Americans who already own cars. You can sell them to Indians and Chinese people who have never owned a car before. If you cut out buying products from abroad, you also make it difficult to sell abroad too. If the US is the only large economy in the world, then Trump's strategy works. The problem is that soon the US won't be the only large economy. All the cool stuff Americans love like big militaries, missions to the moon, entitlement programs, etc. all rely on massive economic growth. If the US has less money in the long term, which every economist from liberals like Paul Krugman to conservatives like Milton Friedman predict will happen if the US shifts away from free trade, it won't be able to afford everything that makes America great. In short, Trump is prioritizing short term rewards over long term growth. It's the economic equivalent of eating pizza and drinking beer instead of going to the gym and lifting weights. It'll make people happy in the short term, but also make them fat and weak in the long term. India, China, and the rest of the world are getting more and more rich and powerful every day. There are simply too many people there for it not to happen. If the US refuses to invest in emerging markets today, it will get bowled over in the future. And as those countries become the largest economies in the world, they will have the cash and clout to become the most powerful countries in the world too.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":919.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4h8um","c_root_id_B":"dd4fraz","created_at_utc_A":1485825546,"created_at_utc_B":1485823665,"score_A":182,"score_B":90,"human_ref_A":"> In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. What America should be doing is making American workers more competitive in the international marketplace. That's the long term solution if the US wants to remain a superpower. Donald Trump's strategy is to stop anyone with cheaper or higher quality goods from being able to sell products in the US. It's a short term solution that relies on America's fear rather than it's optimism. One way of doing that is to make American employees more skilled. For example, the US has the money to invest in teaching everyone how to code. Coding is to 2017 as literacy was to 1817. At that time, most Americans were farmers and the jobs that people do now didn't even exist then. Even the most menial service job today requires people to know how to read and do basic math. Coding would represent the same type of growth. Another way to make American employees better is to encourage Americans to go abroad. In the US, a person who can read, write, and do basic math at the high school level is qualified for only menial jobs. But they are more skilled that hundreds of millions of people abroad. They are competing for the same jobs as people who are illiterate. What Americans should be doing is going abroad to start their own businesses and hiring those unskilled workers to do basic things for them. Instead of becoming capitalists, they are trying to compete as labor despite being significantly overqualified. Donald Trump is trying to preserve an old way of life even though the conditions that made it possible doesn't exist anymore. The 1950's US was successful because factories were brand new developments, and there was no competition from Europe, which was razed to the ground during WWII, or the rest of the world, which was limited due to colonialism. Today, Europe is highly developed, and the fastest growing economies in the world are India and China. Donald Trump's strategy only works if the US is willing to only trade with the US. The problem with this is that the US's growth rate is much slower than other countries. You can't sell cars to Americans who already own cars. You can sell them to Indians and Chinese people who have never owned a car before. If you cut out buying products from abroad, you also make it difficult to sell abroad too. If the US is the only large economy in the world, then Trump's strategy works. The problem is that soon the US won't be the only large economy. All the cool stuff Americans love like big militaries, missions to the moon, entitlement programs, etc. all rely on massive economic growth. If the US has less money in the long term, which every economist from liberals like Paul Krugman to conservatives like Milton Friedman predict will happen if the US shifts away from free trade, it won't be able to afford everything that makes America great. In short, Trump is prioritizing short term rewards over long term growth. It's the economic equivalent of eating pizza and drinking beer instead of going to the gym and lifting weights. It'll make people happy in the short term, but also make them fat and weak in the long term. India, China, and the rest of the world are getting more and more rich and powerful every day. There are simply too many people there for it not to happen. If the US refuses to invest in emerging markets today, it will get bowled over in the future. And as those countries become the largest economies in the world, they will have the cash and clout to become the most powerful countries in the world too.","human_ref_B":"> In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. They were given visas by the government, so there is some reasonable expectations to be allowed to enter. > but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. How is it being smart when you explicitly say no to everyone except for this specific religion (christians)? Why is automatically helping christains are automatically smart and not everyone else? > However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. The big danger is that the wall revenue source will continue after the wall is paid and the plan is that Americans will first pay for it. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Right now it looks like we are headed to a trade war with China and Mexico would raise the price of goods in the US. So higher prices at Walmart will just hurt Americans.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1881.0,"score_ratio":2.0222222222} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4h8um","c_root_id_B":"dd4h1nh","created_at_utc_A":1485825546,"created_at_utc_B":1485825295,"score_A":182,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"> In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. What America should be doing is making American workers more competitive in the international marketplace. That's the long term solution if the US wants to remain a superpower. Donald Trump's strategy is to stop anyone with cheaper or higher quality goods from being able to sell products in the US. It's a short term solution that relies on America's fear rather than it's optimism. One way of doing that is to make American employees more skilled. For example, the US has the money to invest in teaching everyone how to code. Coding is to 2017 as literacy was to 1817. At that time, most Americans were farmers and the jobs that people do now didn't even exist then. Even the most menial service job today requires people to know how to read and do basic math. Coding would represent the same type of growth. Another way to make American employees better is to encourage Americans to go abroad. In the US, a person who can read, write, and do basic math at the high school level is qualified for only menial jobs. But they are more skilled that hundreds of millions of people abroad. They are competing for the same jobs as people who are illiterate. What Americans should be doing is going abroad to start their own businesses and hiring those unskilled workers to do basic things for them. Instead of becoming capitalists, they are trying to compete as labor despite being significantly overqualified. Donald Trump is trying to preserve an old way of life even though the conditions that made it possible doesn't exist anymore. The 1950's US was successful because factories were brand new developments, and there was no competition from Europe, which was razed to the ground during WWII, or the rest of the world, which was limited due to colonialism. Today, Europe is highly developed, and the fastest growing economies in the world are India and China. Donald Trump's strategy only works if the US is willing to only trade with the US. The problem with this is that the US's growth rate is much slower than other countries. You can't sell cars to Americans who already own cars. You can sell them to Indians and Chinese people who have never owned a car before. If you cut out buying products from abroad, you also make it difficult to sell abroad too. If the US is the only large economy in the world, then Trump's strategy works. The problem is that soon the US won't be the only large economy. All the cool stuff Americans love like big militaries, missions to the moon, entitlement programs, etc. all rely on massive economic growth. If the US has less money in the long term, which every economist from liberals like Paul Krugman to conservatives like Milton Friedman predict will happen if the US shifts away from free trade, it won't be able to afford everything that makes America great. In short, Trump is prioritizing short term rewards over long term growth. It's the economic equivalent of eating pizza and drinking beer instead of going to the gym and lifting weights. It'll make people happy in the short term, but also make them fat and weak in the long term. India, China, and the rest of the world are getting more and more rich and powerful every day. There are simply too many people there for it not to happen. If the US refuses to invest in emerging markets today, it will get bowled over in the future. And as those countries become the largest economies in the world, they will have the cash and clout to become the most powerful countries in the world too.","human_ref_B":"> I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. \u00a0 If Trump had literally any other role in society, sure, look past his flaws.\u00a0 But he\u2019s not just some joe-schmoe, he\u2019s the fucking president of our country.\u00a0 You\u2019re letting his worst flaws represent you and your country, so I don\u2019t think those flaws should be so casually forgiven, nor do I think your respect should be so easily handed over to him.\u00a0 Come on, you\u2019re better than that and America is better than that. \u00a0 > Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. \u00a0 You are admitting that you think this policy will be ineffectual, but you admire that he is showing \u201ccommitment\u201d.\u00a0 Both you and our country deserve better than ineffectual commitments.\u00a0 \u00a0 > The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. \u00a0 Again, you seem to recognize here that Trump fucked up.\u00a0 Why is that so easy for you to shrug off?\u00a0 \u00a0 > I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. \u00a0 Again, you are praising Trump for proposing an ineffective solution to a problem.\u00a0 He\u2019s our *president*, feel free to hold him to a higher standard! \u00a0 > I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.\u00a0 \u00a0 Even if you have the knowledge of global economics to support your claim that free trade deals are a problem, you just admitted that Trump doesn\u2019t have you convinced that he can do anything about it.\u00a0 Why support him then? \u00a0 > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. \u00a0 Here, you are basically bragging that Trump\u2019s embarrassing buffoonery is okay because it won\u2019t end up triggering World War III.\u00a0 Why are your standards so insanely low?!\u00a0 \u00a0 > Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. \u00a0 So as long as a candidate isn\u2019t a complete fucking psychopath, you are okay with them \u00a0 \u00a0 > If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained. I hope I wasn't too un-civil, but honestly I will never understand Trump supporters.\u00a0 Even if you set aside all of his policies (which is a HUGE set-aside, by the way, his policies scare the shit out of me!), there is still the fact that our country is now represented by a fat orange retard.\u00a0 Did you ever learn about past Presidents in grade school?\u00a0 Do you remember anything about Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or hell, even Ronald Reagan?\u00a0 You really think Trump is worthy of standing next to them and upholding their legacy?\u00a0 As a conservative, you could have gone with **literally any other fucking candidate** and I would have at least *respected* them as my president, but not Trump.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":251.0,"score_ratio":2.8} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4h8um","c_root_id_B":"dd4fej9","created_at_utc_A":1485825546,"created_at_utc_B":1485823220,"score_A":182,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"> In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. What America should be doing is making American workers more competitive in the international marketplace. That's the long term solution if the US wants to remain a superpower. Donald Trump's strategy is to stop anyone with cheaper or higher quality goods from being able to sell products in the US. It's a short term solution that relies on America's fear rather than it's optimism. One way of doing that is to make American employees more skilled. For example, the US has the money to invest in teaching everyone how to code. Coding is to 2017 as literacy was to 1817. At that time, most Americans were farmers and the jobs that people do now didn't even exist then. Even the most menial service job today requires people to know how to read and do basic math. Coding would represent the same type of growth. Another way to make American employees better is to encourage Americans to go abroad. In the US, a person who can read, write, and do basic math at the high school level is qualified for only menial jobs. But they are more skilled that hundreds of millions of people abroad. They are competing for the same jobs as people who are illiterate. What Americans should be doing is going abroad to start their own businesses and hiring those unskilled workers to do basic things for them. Instead of becoming capitalists, they are trying to compete as labor despite being significantly overqualified. Donald Trump is trying to preserve an old way of life even though the conditions that made it possible doesn't exist anymore. The 1950's US was successful because factories were brand new developments, and there was no competition from Europe, which was razed to the ground during WWII, or the rest of the world, which was limited due to colonialism. Today, Europe is highly developed, and the fastest growing economies in the world are India and China. Donald Trump's strategy only works if the US is willing to only trade with the US. The problem with this is that the US's growth rate is much slower than other countries. You can't sell cars to Americans who already own cars. You can sell them to Indians and Chinese people who have never owned a car before. If you cut out buying products from abroad, you also make it difficult to sell abroad too. If the US is the only large economy in the world, then Trump's strategy works. The problem is that soon the US won't be the only large economy. All the cool stuff Americans love like big militaries, missions to the moon, entitlement programs, etc. all rely on massive economic growth. If the US has less money in the long term, which every economist from liberals like Paul Krugman to conservatives like Milton Friedman predict will happen if the US shifts away from free trade, it won't be able to afford everything that makes America great. In short, Trump is prioritizing short term rewards over long term growth. It's the economic equivalent of eating pizza and drinking beer instead of going to the gym and lifting weights. It'll make people happy in the short term, but also make them fat and weak in the long term. India, China, and the rest of the world are getting more and more rich and powerful every day. There are simply too many people there for it not to happen. If the US refuses to invest in emerging markets today, it will get bowled over in the future. And as those countries become the largest economies in the world, they will have the cash and clout to become the most powerful countries in the world too.","human_ref_B":">However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. I can't imagine where you're coming from on this one. Probably the one consistent thing I've heard about the wall is how expensive it will be. From his executive order on the wall, >The executive orders Trump signed Wednesday call for boosting the ranks of Border Patrol forces by an additional 5,000 agents as well as for 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to carry out deportations. Not even taking the construction of a wall into consideration, that's 15,000 new full time employees. The average salary of a Border Patrol Officer *last year* was about $80,000. Fifteen-thousand people being paid an average annual salary of eighty-thousand dollars **will cost American taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars every year**. And that's just the costs of employing people! No construction whatsoever. That doesn't even represent the cost of hiring *construction workers*. So where you get the idea that this will be anything short of hugely expensive, I don't know. ***************** Other than that, if you see Trump and aren't *repulsed* by how sleazy and awful he is then I don't think I can change that. This slew of executive orders is emblematic of his anti-democratic style. They were unilateral rather than deliberative. They went through zero legal review process. All this bullshit with green cards could have been solved beforehand if Trump had even the slightest respect for the opinion of others. You can go on and on with this guy. He openly advocates for torture. He wants to turn the country into a nation of torturers. I don't think he should be impeached in his first weeks, but it's going to happen the way he's heading.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2326.0,"score_ratio":3.25} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4h8um","c_root_id_B":"dd4f7x6","created_at_utc_A":1485825546,"created_at_utc_B":1485822986,"score_A":182,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"> In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. What America should be doing is making American workers more competitive in the international marketplace. That's the long term solution if the US wants to remain a superpower. Donald Trump's strategy is to stop anyone with cheaper or higher quality goods from being able to sell products in the US. It's a short term solution that relies on America's fear rather than it's optimism. One way of doing that is to make American employees more skilled. For example, the US has the money to invest in teaching everyone how to code. Coding is to 2017 as literacy was to 1817. At that time, most Americans were farmers and the jobs that people do now didn't even exist then. Even the most menial service job today requires people to know how to read and do basic math. Coding would represent the same type of growth. Another way to make American employees better is to encourage Americans to go abroad. In the US, a person who can read, write, and do basic math at the high school level is qualified for only menial jobs. But they are more skilled that hundreds of millions of people abroad. They are competing for the same jobs as people who are illiterate. What Americans should be doing is going abroad to start their own businesses and hiring those unskilled workers to do basic things for them. Instead of becoming capitalists, they are trying to compete as labor despite being significantly overqualified. Donald Trump is trying to preserve an old way of life even though the conditions that made it possible doesn't exist anymore. The 1950's US was successful because factories were brand new developments, and there was no competition from Europe, which was razed to the ground during WWII, or the rest of the world, which was limited due to colonialism. Today, Europe is highly developed, and the fastest growing economies in the world are India and China. Donald Trump's strategy only works if the US is willing to only trade with the US. The problem with this is that the US's growth rate is much slower than other countries. You can't sell cars to Americans who already own cars. You can sell them to Indians and Chinese people who have never owned a car before. If you cut out buying products from abroad, you also make it difficult to sell abroad too. If the US is the only large economy in the world, then Trump's strategy works. The problem is that soon the US won't be the only large economy. All the cool stuff Americans love like big militaries, missions to the moon, entitlement programs, etc. all rely on massive economic growth. If the US has less money in the long term, which every economist from liberals like Paul Krugman to conservatives like Milton Friedman predict will happen if the US shifts away from free trade, it won't be able to afford everything that makes America great. In short, Trump is prioritizing short term rewards over long term growth. It's the economic equivalent of eating pizza and drinking beer instead of going to the gym and lifting weights. It'll make people happy in the short term, but also make them fat and weak in the long term. India, China, and the rest of the world are getting more and more rich and powerful every day. There are simply too many people there for it not to happen. If the US refuses to invest in emerging markets today, it will get bowled over in the future. And as those countries become the largest economies in the world, they will have the cash and clout to become the most powerful countries in the world too.","human_ref_B":"First of all, you didn't really say much in favor of Trump. Your primary arguments are mostly that he isn't that bad. > from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. Senator Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, has estimated it will cost $12-15 billion dollars, and that's probably a low estimate. > In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. Things can be done cheaper in the U.S. too, just with high-tech manufacturing with few workers. That's the way things are moving anyway. If manufacturing comes back to the U.S. it won't bring back the manufacturing jobs the U.S. had 20-30 years ago. Besides, putting up trade barriers and tariffs will lead other countries to do the same. Take Mexico. The U.S. exports $236 billion in goods to Mexico. That is put in jeopardy if a trade war ensues. Prices of goods in the U.S. go up due to the tariffs. Supply chains are disrupted. Things are messed up bigly. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. China is on the rise economically, and is one of the countries that is best positioned to take care of an isolationist United States. The U.S. is not going to be \"ignored,\" but the role of the U.S. as the clearly most powerful nation in the world is not assured.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2560.0,"score_ratio":3.8723404255} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4fraz","c_root_id_B":"dd4gi9j","created_at_utc_A":1485823665,"created_at_utc_B":1485824627,"score_A":90,"score_B":156,"human_ref_A":"> In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. They were given visas by the government, so there is some reasonable expectations to be allowed to enter. > but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. How is it being smart when you explicitly say no to everyone except for this specific religion (christians)? Why is automatically helping christains are automatically smart and not everyone else? > However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. The big danger is that the wall revenue source will continue after the wall is paid and the plan is that Americans will first pay for it. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Right now it looks like we are headed to a trade war with China and Mexico would raise the price of goods in the US. So higher prices at Walmart will just hurt Americans.","human_ref_B":"For the love of god. First Bush the younger goes to town in the middle east and destabilizes the region for a generation. Then when the refugees start to flow it's suddenly not America's problem anymore? America, more than any other country in the world, has a responsibility to mitigate the suffering in Syria. It was the prime mover of that shit show, and the country should own the mess. Now, the above is a moral argument. There is also one rooted in real politic. The ban on travel from muslim countries is not only a dick move of elephantine proportions, it's is counterproductive in meeting its stated objective: keeping America safe. First, it is an excellent recruiting point for Islamic Radicals, who can now rightly point to the fact that the American administration is discriminating against its Muslim brothers. Second, it weakens the position of our regional allies, who are now even more isolated and on the defensive in their own countries Third, it will hurt the economies of these countries (just as Trump's idiotic threat of a trade war), further fanning the flames of extremism. And don't get me started on the wall. The US economy WINS with the supply of low income immigrant labor. They are not taking American jobs, because there are not enough Americans willing to pick fruit and clean toilets. This blame the immigrant and create an enemy (muslims) shtick is straight out of the fascist playbook. Yes, u\/LordKX, FASCIST. Trump is a callous lunatic with no regard for the rest of the world. You can still redeem yourself, but time is running out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":962.0,"score_ratio":1.7333333333} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4fej9","c_root_id_B":"dd4gi9j","created_at_utc_A":1485823220,"created_at_utc_B":1485824627,"score_A":56,"score_B":156,"human_ref_A":">However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. I can't imagine where you're coming from on this one. Probably the one consistent thing I've heard about the wall is how expensive it will be. From his executive order on the wall, >The executive orders Trump signed Wednesday call for boosting the ranks of Border Patrol forces by an additional 5,000 agents as well as for 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to carry out deportations. Not even taking the construction of a wall into consideration, that's 15,000 new full time employees. The average salary of a Border Patrol Officer *last year* was about $80,000. Fifteen-thousand people being paid an average annual salary of eighty-thousand dollars **will cost American taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars every year**. And that's just the costs of employing people! No construction whatsoever. That doesn't even represent the cost of hiring *construction workers*. So where you get the idea that this will be anything short of hugely expensive, I don't know. ***************** Other than that, if you see Trump and aren't *repulsed* by how sleazy and awful he is then I don't think I can change that. This slew of executive orders is emblematic of his anti-democratic style. They were unilateral rather than deliberative. They went through zero legal review process. All this bullshit with green cards could have been solved beforehand if Trump had even the slightest respect for the opinion of others. You can go on and on with this guy. He openly advocates for torture. He wants to turn the country into a nation of torturers. I don't think he should be impeached in his first weeks, but it's going to happen the way he's heading.","human_ref_B":"For the love of god. First Bush the younger goes to town in the middle east and destabilizes the region for a generation. Then when the refugees start to flow it's suddenly not America's problem anymore? America, more than any other country in the world, has a responsibility to mitigate the suffering in Syria. It was the prime mover of that shit show, and the country should own the mess. Now, the above is a moral argument. There is also one rooted in real politic. The ban on travel from muslim countries is not only a dick move of elephantine proportions, it's is counterproductive in meeting its stated objective: keeping America safe. First, it is an excellent recruiting point for Islamic Radicals, who can now rightly point to the fact that the American administration is discriminating against its Muslim brothers. Second, it weakens the position of our regional allies, who are now even more isolated and on the defensive in their own countries Third, it will hurt the economies of these countries (just as Trump's idiotic threat of a trade war), further fanning the flames of extremism. And don't get me started on the wall. The US economy WINS with the supply of low income immigrant labor. They are not taking American jobs, because there are not enough Americans willing to pick fruit and clean toilets. This blame the immigrant and create an enemy (muslims) shtick is straight out of the fascist playbook. Yes, u\/LordKX, FASCIST. Trump is a callous lunatic with no regard for the rest of the world. You can still redeem yourself, but time is running out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1407.0,"score_ratio":2.7857142857} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4f7x6","c_root_id_B":"dd4gi9j","created_at_utc_A":1485822986,"created_at_utc_B":1485824627,"score_A":47,"score_B":156,"human_ref_A":"First of all, you didn't really say much in favor of Trump. Your primary arguments are mostly that he isn't that bad. > from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. Senator Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, has estimated it will cost $12-15 billion dollars, and that's probably a low estimate. > In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. Things can be done cheaper in the U.S. too, just with high-tech manufacturing with few workers. That's the way things are moving anyway. If manufacturing comes back to the U.S. it won't bring back the manufacturing jobs the U.S. had 20-30 years ago. Besides, putting up trade barriers and tariffs will lead other countries to do the same. Take Mexico. The U.S. exports $236 billion in goods to Mexico. That is put in jeopardy if a trade war ensues. Prices of goods in the U.S. go up due to the tariffs. Supply chains are disrupted. Things are messed up bigly. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. China is on the rise economically, and is one of the countries that is best positioned to take care of an isolationist United States. The U.S. is not going to be \"ignored,\" but the role of the U.S. as the clearly most powerful nation in the world is not assured.","human_ref_B":"For the love of god. First Bush the younger goes to town in the middle east and destabilizes the region for a generation. Then when the refugees start to flow it's suddenly not America's problem anymore? America, more than any other country in the world, has a responsibility to mitigate the suffering in Syria. It was the prime mover of that shit show, and the country should own the mess. Now, the above is a moral argument. There is also one rooted in real politic. The ban on travel from muslim countries is not only a dick move of elephantine proportions, it's is counterproductive in meeting its stated objective: keeping America safe. First, it is an excellent recruiting point for Islamic Radicals, who can now rightly point to the fact that the American administration is discriminating against its Muslim brothers. Second, it weakens the position of our regional allies, who are now even more isolated and on the defensive in their own countries Third, it will hurt the economies of these countries (just as Trump's idiotic threat of a trade war), further fanning the flames of extremism. And don't get me started on the wall. The US economy WINS with the supply of low income immigrant labor. They are not taking American jobs, because there are not enough Americans willing to pick fruit and clean toilets. This blame the immigrant and create an enemy (muslims) shtick is straight out of the fascist playbook. Yes, u\/LordKX, FASCIST. Trump is a callous lunatic with no regard for the rest of the world. You can still redeem yourself, but time is running out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1641.0,"score_ratio":3.3191489362} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4fraz","c_root_id_B":"dd4fej9","created_at_utc_A":1485823665,"created_at_utc_B":1485823220,"score_A":90,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"> In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. They were given visas by the government, so there is some reasonable expectations to be allowed to enter. > but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. How is it being smart when you explicitly say no to everyone except for this specific religion (christians)? Why is automatically helping christains are automatically smart and not everyone else? > However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. The big danger is that the wall revenue source will continue after the wall is paid and the plan is that Americans will first pay for it. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Right now it looks like we are headed to a trade war with China and Mexico would raise the price of goods in the US. So higher prices at Walmart will just hurt Americans.","human_ref_B":">However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. I can't imagine where you're coming from on this one. Probably the one consistent thing I've heard about the wall is how expensive it will be. From his executive order on the wall, >The executive orders Trump signed Wednesday call for boosting the ranks of Border Patrol forces by an additional 5,000 agents as well as for 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to carry out deportations. Not even taking the construction of a wall into consideration, that's 15,000 new full time employees. The average salary of a Border Patrol Officer *last year* was about $80,000. Fifteen-thousand people being paid an average annual salary of eighty-thousand dollars **will cost American taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars every year**. And that's just the costs of employing people! No construction whatsoever. That doesn't even represent the cost of hiring *construction workers*. So where you get the idea that this will be anything short of hugely expensive, I don't know. ***************** Other than that, if you see Trump and aren't *repulsed* by how sleazy and awful he is then I don't think I can change that. This slew of executive orders is emblematic of his anti-democratic style. They were unilateral rather than deliberative. They went through zero legal review process. All this bullshit with green cards could have been solved beforehand if Trump had even the slightest respect for the opinion of others. You can go on and on with this guy. He openly advocates for torture. He wants to turn the country into a nation of torturers. I don't think he should be impeached in his first weeks, but it's going to happen the way he's heading.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":445.0,"score_ratio":1.6071428571} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4fraz","c_root_id_B":"dd4f7x6","created_at_utc_A":1485823665,"created_at_utc_B":1485822986,"score_A":90,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"> In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. They were given visas by the government, so there is some reasonable expectations to be allowed to enter. > but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. How is it being smart when you explicitly say no to everyone except for this specific religion (christians)? Why is automatically helping christains are automatically smart and not everyone else? > However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. The big danger is that the wall revenue source will continue after the wall is paid and the plan is that Americans will first pay for it. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Right now it looks like we are headed to a trade war with China and Mexico would raise the price of goods in the US. So higher prices at Walmart will just hurt Americans.","human_ref_B":"First of all, you didn't really say much in favor of Trump. Your primary arguments are mostly that he isn't that bad. > from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. Senator Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, has estimated it will cost $12-15 billion dollars, and that's probably a low estimate. > In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. Things can be done cheaper in the U.S. too, just with high-tech manufacturing with few workers. That's the way things are moving anyway. If manufacturing comes back to the U.S. it won't bring back the manufacturing jobs the U.S. had 20-30 years ago. Besides, putting up trade barriers and tariffs will lead other countries to do the same. Take Mexico. The U.S. exports $236 billion in goods to Mexico. That is put in jeopardy if a trade war ensues. Prices of goods in the U.S. go up due to the tariffs. Supply chains are disrupted. Things are messed up bigly. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. China is on the rise economically, and is one of the countries that is best positioned to take care of an isolationist United States. The U.S. is not going to be \"ignored,\" but the role of the U.S. as the clearly most powerful nation in the world is not assured.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":679.0,"score_ratio":1.914893617} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4h1nh","c_root_id_B":"dd4fej9","created_at_utc_A":1485825295,"created_at_utc_B":1485823220,"score_A":65,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"> I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. \u00a0 If Trump had literally any other role in society, sure, look past his flaws.\u00a0 But he\u2019s not just some joe-schmoe, he\u2019s the fucking president of our country.\u00a0 You\u2019re letting his worst flaws represent you and your country, so I don\u2019t think those flaws should be so casually forgiven, nor do I think your respect should be so easily handed over to him.\u00a0 Come on, you\u2019re better than that and America is better than that. \u00a0 > Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. \u00a0 You are admitting that you think this policy will be ineffectual, but you admire that he is showing \u201ccommitment\u201d.\u00a0 Both you and our country deserve better than ineffectual commitments.\u00a0 \u00a0 > The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. \u00a0 Again, you seem to recognize here that Trump fucked up.\u00a0 Why is that so easy for you to shrug off?\u00a0 \u00a0 > I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. \u00a0 Again, you are praising Trump for proposing an ineffective solution to a problem.\u00a0 He\u2019s our *president*, feel free to hold him to a higher standard! \u00a0 > I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.\u00a0 \u00a0 Even if you have the knowledge of global economics to support your claim that free trade deals are a problem, you just admitted that Trump doesn\u2019t have you convinced that he can do anything about it.\u00a0 Why support him then? \u00a0 > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. \u00a0 Here, you are basically bragging that Trump\u2019s embarrassing buffoonery is okay because it won\u2019t end up triggering World War III.\u00a0 Why are your standards so insanely low?!\u00a0 \u00a0 > Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. \u00a0 So as long as a candidate isn\u2019t a complete fucking psychopath, you are okay with them \u00a0 \u00a0 > If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained. I hope I wasn't too un-civil, but honestly I will never understand Trump supporters.\u00a0 Even if you set aside all of his policies (which is a HUGE set-aside, by the way, his policies scare the shit out of me!), there is still the fact that our country is now represented by a fat orange retard.\u00a0 Did you ever learn about past Presidents in grade school?\u00a0 Do you remember anything about Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or hell, even Ronald Reagan?\u00a0 You really think Trump is worthy of standing next to them and upholding their legacy?\u00a0 As a conservative, you could have gone with **literally any other fucking candidate** and I would have at least *respected* them as my president, but not Trump.","human_ref_B":">However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. I can't imagine where you're coming from on this one. Probably the one consistent thing I've heard about the wall is how expensive it will be. From his executive order on the wall, >The executive orders Trump signed Wednesday call for boosting the ranks of Border Patrol forces by an additional 5,000 agents as well as for 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to carry out deportations. Not even taking the construction of a wall into consideration, that's 15,000 new full time employees. The average salary of a Border Patrol Officer *last year* was about $80,000. Fifteen-thousand people being paid an average annual salary of eighty-thousand dollars **will cost American taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars every year**. And that's just the costs of employing people! No construction whatsoever. That doesn't even represent the cost of hiring *construction workers*. So where you get the idea that this will be anything short of hugely expensive, I don't know. ***************** Other than that, if you see Trump and aren't *repulsed* by how sleazy and awful he is then I don't think I can change that. This slew of executive orders is emblematic of his anti-democratic style. They were unilateral rather than deliberative. They went through zero legal review process. All this bullshit with green cards could have been solved beforehand if Trump had even the slightest respect for the opinion of others. You can go on and on with this guy. He openly advocates for torture. He wants to turn the country into a nation of torturers. I don't think he should be impeached in his first weeks, but it's going to happen the way he's heading.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2075.0,"score_ratio":1.1607142857} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4f7x6","c_root_id_B":"dd4h1nh","created_at_utc_A":1485822986,"created_at_utc_B":1485825295,"score_A":47,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"First of all, you didn't really say much in favor of Trump. Your primary arguments are mostly that he isn't that bad. > from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. Senator Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, has estimated it will cost $12-15 billion dollars, and that's probably a low estimate. > In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. Things can be done cheaper in the U.S. too, just with high-tech manufacturing with few workers. That's the way things are moving anyway. If manufacturing comes back to the U.S. it won't bring back the manufacturing jobs the U.S. had 20-30 years ago. Besides, putting up trade barriers and tariffs will lead other countries to do the same. Take Mexico. The U.S. exports $236 billion in goods to Mexico. That is put in jeopardy if a trade war ensues. Prices of goods in the U.S. go up due to the tariffs. Supply chains are disrupted. Things are messed up bigly. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. China is on the rise economically, and is one of the countries that is best positioned to take care of an isolationist United States. The U.S. is not going to be \"ignored,\" but the role of the U.S. as the clearly most powerful nation in the world is not assured.","human_ref_B":"> I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. \u00a0 If Trump had literally any other role in society, sure, look past his flaws.\u00a0 But he\u2019s not just some joe-schmoe, he\u2019s the fucking president of our country.\u00a0 You\u2019re letting his worst flaws represent you and your country, so I don\u2019t think those flaws should be so casually forgiven, nor do I think your respect should be so easily handed over to him.\u00a0 Come on, you\u2019re better than that and America is better than that. \u00a0 > Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. \u00a0 You are admitting that you think this policy will be ineffectual, but you admire that he is showing \u201ccommitment\u201d.\u00a0 Both you and our country deserve better than ineffectual commitments.\u00a0 \u00a0 > The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. \u00a0 Again, you seem to recognize here that Trump fucked up.\u00a0 Why is that so easy for you to shrug off?\u00a0 \u00a0 > I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. \u00a0 Again, you are praising Trump for proposing an ineffective solution to a problem.\u00a0 He\u2019s our *president*, feel free to hold him to a higher standard! \u00a0 > I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker.\u00a0 \u00a0 Even if you have the knowledge of global economics to support your claim that free trade deals are a problem, you just admitted that Trump doesn\u2019t have you convinced that he can do anything about it.\u00a0 Why support him then? \u00a0 > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. \u00a0 Here, you are basically bragging that Trump\u2019s embarrassing buffoonery is okay because it won\u2019t end up triggering World War III.\u00a0 Why are your standards so insanely low?!\u00a0 \u00a0 > Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. \u00a0 So as long as a candidate isn\u2019t a complete fucking psychopath, you are okay with them \u00a0 \u00a0 > If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained. I hope I wasn't too un-civil, but honestly I will never understand Trump supporters.\u00a0 Even if you set aside all of his policies (which is a HUGE set-aside, by the way, his policies scare the shit out of me!), there is still the fact that our country is now represented by a fat orange retard.\u00a0 Did you ever learn about past Presidents in grade school?\u00a0 Do you remember anything about Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or hell, even Ronald Reagan?\u00a0 You really think Trump is worthy of standing next to them and upholding their legacy?\u00a0 As a conservative, you could have gone with **literally any other fucking candidate** and I would have at least *respected* them as my president, but not Trump.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2309.0,"score_ratio":1.3829787234} {"post_id":"5r4prs","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: I support Donald Trump In light of the recent massive online outcry against Trump, I want to once more reflect on the validity of my views. During the election cycle, I came to respect Trump even if I could see his flaws. The arguments I saw for him\/his positions were generally logical and well reasoned, while the arguments against him were ad hominems, personal stories, and otherwise emotional in nature. Any time I questioned things, I was called a racist and a bigot. Even though for most of my life I considered my views liberal, the election cycled saw me switching to the Trump Train. Specifically on the recent immigration issue, while I don't think it will particularly stop terrorism or that terrorism is a threat currently, I do think it shows Trump's commitment to preventing a situation like the one in Europe. The initial green card situation was unfortunate, but from what I have seen was quickly solved. In addition, I see no reason why non-citizens, regardless of what they've gone through, should feel entitled to enter the US. Yes, it would be nice to help people, but realistically the world is filled with people who are suffering, even in our own country, and we should be smart with who and how we help. I hold a similar view on something like the wall. I don't think it will even close to eliminate illegal immigration, and it won't even stop the main source of illegal immigration. However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. I don't know how successful Trump will be, but I believe free trade deals will only hurt the average american worker. As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. Dictators and horrible regimes across the globe are worked with because of the resources they have, and from a purely statistical standpoint I don't think the US can be ignored. I have no doubts some in the international community will hate Trump, but others will like him, and regardless the US has enough leverage that they will be worked with. I also don't believe Trump will start any major wars. He is highly successful and even his greatest detractors admit he cares about himself, so especially after he has stated he is anti-war, I do not see him getting into a situation where he puts himself at risk. Finally, in terms of his provocative actions\/statements, I generally don't have an issue with him. I am a quite un-PC person, and on top of that I have seen many of his actions\/statements twisted brutally out of proportion. I think he has a blustery personality and has a habit of talking with his foot in his mouth, but I have yet to see something that makes me truly believe he is a cruel or vindictive person. If there are any specific questions or if somebody wants me to provide more information on a point, I will do so. I hope that a civic discussion can be maintained.","c_root_id_A":"dd4f7x6","c_root_id_B":"dd4fej9","created_at_utc_A":1485822986,"created_at_utc_B":1485823220,"score_A":47,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"First of all, you didn't really say much in favor of Trump. Your primary arguments are mostly that he isn't that bad. > from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. Senator Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, has estimated it will cost $12-15 billion dollars, and that's probably a low estimate. > In terms of bringing jobs back, I think its a simple concept that if things can be done cheaper outside the US without any downside, they will be done elsewhere. Things can be done cheaper in the U.S. too, just with high-tech manufacturing with few workers. That's the way things are moving anyway. If manufacturing comes back to the U.S. it won't bring back the manufacturing jobs the U.S. had 20-30 years ago. Besides, putting up trade barriers and tariffs will lead other countries to do the same. Take Mexico. The U.S. exports $236 billion in goods to Mexico. That is put in jeopardy if a trade war ensues. Prices of goods in the U.S. go up due to the tariffs. Supply chains are disrupted. Things are messed up bigly. > As for diplomacy, given the US's economic and military power, I don't see how Trump can hurt US relations. China is on the rise economically, and is one of the countries that is best positioned to take care of an isolationist United States. The U.S. is not going to be \"ignored,\" but the role of the U.S. as the clearly most powerful nation in the world is not assured.","human_ref_B":">However, it will stop some illegal immigration, and from what I've seen the cost is relatively minimal. I can't imagine where you're coming from on this one. Probably the one consistent thing I've heard about the wall is how expensive it will be. From his executive order on the wall, >The executive orders Trump signed Wednesday call for boosting the ranks of Border Patrol forces by an additional 5,000 agents as well as for 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to carry out deportations. Not even taking the construction of a wall into consideration, that's 15,000 new full time employees. The average salary of a Border Patrol Officer *last year* was about $80,000. Fifteen-thousand people being paid an average annual salary of eighty-thousand dollars **will cost American taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars every year**. And that's just the costs of employing people! No construction whatsoever. That doesn't even represent the cost of hiring *construction workers*. So where you get the idea that this will be anything short of hugely expensive, I don't know. ***************** Other than that, if you see Trump and aren't *repulsed* by how sleazy and awful he is then I don't think I can change that. This slew of executive orders is emblematic of his anti-democratic style. They were unilateral rather than deliberative. They went through zero legal review process. All this bullshit with green cards could have been solved beforehand if Trump had even the slightest respect for the opinion of others. You can go on and on with this guy. He openly advocates for torture. He wants to turn the country into a nation of torturers. I don't think he should be impeached in his first weeks, but it's going to happen the way he's heading.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":234.0,"score_ratio":1.1914893617} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"foj87pl","c_root_id_B":"foj9jvx","created_at_utc_A":1587812246,"created_at_utc_B":1587813720,"score_A":7,"score_B":1508,"human_ref_A":"I agree ,it's not a \"get out of jail free\" card , at least it shouldn't be, for bad behavior. However, they can't really do anything about their behavior ,so scolding them won't \"work\" ,it won't improve their behavior as well. Tricky situation, both options seems to suck","human_ref_B":"I don't think autism should be considered an excuse, but I do believe it's an explanation that should be taken into consideration in how you respond to what they are saying. When someone says something, I'd argue that intent, what's actually being said, and how it's perceived matters. And if someone says something with no malintent, because they have a limited understanding of how it's going to affect others, that should be taken into consideration in how it's perceived. If a three year old takes a piece of candy in the store, because they don't understand what stealing means, they shouldn't be treated like a thief in the same way an adult should. Nor should someone without to ability to understand that what they're saying is wrong, be treated like an asshole, in the same way as someone who intentionally does this to harm others should.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1474.0,"score_ratio":215.4285714286} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fojairx","c_root_id_B":"fok1655","created_at_utc_A":1587814735,"created_at_utc_B":1587833440,"score_A":75,"score_B":207,"human_ref_A":">They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. So you recognize that they didn't know they were being offensive, but you still feel the need to hold them accountable for their offensiveness? Like, it's polite to shake hands, right? But if you meet somebody who doesn't have hands, or is physically incapable of gripping and shaking their hands well, you wouldn't be like \"wtf this asshole won't shake my hand.\" Scolding an autistic person is looked down upon for kind of similar reasons? Moreover, you're talking about kids. It takes a long time to learn the (often unspoken) intricacies of social propriety and etiquette that the adult world takes for granted. Now imagine that learning those intricacies is like learning calculus, it's just not something that you're naturally good at and why certain things lead to certain results is just mystifying to you. And some guy is now yelling at you because you \"said the wrong thing\" as if he's yelling at you for using the wrong variable in a trigonometry problem. And here's a hot take: learning to accept and deal with obnoxious or even offensive behavior in a kind and compassionate way *is* one of those adult social skills that you should learn about.","human_ref_B":"As someone with Asperger's, I agree that using Autism as an excuse for being shitty is just really bad behaviour. However, it seems that you have given an extremely bad example and seem way too judgemental towards autistic people than you need to be. >Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. Is this not a sign that they genuinely didn't know that what they said is offensive? If anything, this is not asshole behaviour because they apologised to you and felt really bad for hurting you. These poor people are definitely trying to be better in a world that is extremely hostile towards them. How about you try putting yourself in our shoes? The social norms that are second nature to you (eye contact, body language, context, ambiguity) are a complete mystery to us. We have to study these things, and even years after I've socialised with people, read about body language, how to socialise, etc. I still do not pass as normal, and probably never will. I try my absolute best to make those around me feel comfortable, but I often (unintentionally) do weird things that leave a bad impression. This leads to loneliness, isolation, poor career prospects, even hatred from complete strangers. Because I'm following a rule book but there are too many rules to take in so I always slip up. I guarantee that the majority of autistic people will stop being rude if you simply explain these things, instead of being angry at them, and making them feel even worse in a world that is almost like it was built against them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18705.0,"score_ratio":2.76} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fok1655","c_root_id_B":"fojuigv","created_at_utc_A":1587833440,"created_at_utc_B":1587829661,"score_A":207,"score_B":63,"human_ref_A":"As someone with Asperger's, I agree that using Autism as an excuse for being shitty is just really bad behaviour. However, it seems that you have given an extremely bad example and seem way too judgemental towards autistic people than you need to be. >Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. Is this not a sign that they genuinely didn't know that what they said is offensive? If anything, this is not asshole behaviour because they apologised to you and felt really bad for hurting you. These poor people are definitely trying to be better in a world that is extremely hostile towards them. How about you try putting yourself in our shoes? The social norms that are second nature to you (eye contact, body language, context, ambiguity) are a complete mystery to us. We have to study these things, and even years after I've socialised with people, read about body language, how to socialise, etc. I still do not pass as normal, and probably never will. I try my absolute best to make those around me feel comfortable, but I often (unintentionally) do weird things that leave a bad impression. This leads to loneliness, isolation, poor career prospects, even hatred from complete strangers. Because I'm following a rule book but there are too many rules to take in so I always slip up. I guarantee that the majority of autistic people will stop being rude if you simply explain these things, instead of being angry at them, and making them feel even worse in a world that is almost like it was built against them.","human_ref_B":"If a particular thing were in an individuals control alone it can be addressed to them. Unfortunately with Autism that is not the case. (1)We, the neuro typical ones have a proper understanding of social customs, we take a cue from our surroundings and past experiences, also our teachings and our memory functions normal. So we are cautious of what we say in our head and what we blurt out. There is a filter. (2)With Autism that is not the case. They face memory issues, they do not take social cues - the cognitive part of the brain, which controls all of this for us simply fails to do its job for Autistic. Example - I have been training Special needs students for quite sometime now. Frankly I have had tough times, accidental insults also. But I have learned that we cannot give meanings to their words. Infact a good thing I noticed is, if I tell them we have to care for the environment or the poor - they absolutely put no extra meanings to my words and will tend all poor people or animals and plants with utmost care. A blind person tumbling upon you because they did not see you cannot be rude. A deaf person not able to lip read in times of corona due to masks says you are not considerate is not being rude. A part of brain not functioning the way it is supposed to does not make them rude. Note - Moreover my only concern - My students have had situations where they blurt out something and the OMG expression that they get in return discourages them from talking and this affects them a lot. Socialising is a constant fear mainly because of this reason. So this is not an excuse rather an accomodation that we as a society need to make - to not add meanings to their words. Just like we have braille Signals for the blind on streets and malls.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3779.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fok1655","c_root_id_B":"foj87pl","created_at_utc_A":1587833440,"created_at_utc_B":1587812246,"score_A":207,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"As someone with Asperger's, I agree that using Autism as an excuse for being shitty is just really bad behaviour. However, it seems that you have given an extremely bad example and seem way too judgemental towards autistic people than you need to be. >Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. Is this not a sign that they genuinely didn't know that what they said is offensive? If anything, this is not asshole behaviour because they apologised to you and felt really bad for hurting you. These poor people are definitely trying to be better in a world that is extremely hostile towards them. How about you try putting yourself in our shoes? The social norms that are second nature to you (eye contact, body language, context, ambiguity) are a complete mystery to us. We have to study these things, and even years after I've socialised with people, read about body language, how to socialise, etc. I still do not pass as normal, and probably never will. I try my absolute best to make those around me feel comfortable, but I often (unintentionally) do weird things that leave a bad impression. This leads to loneliness, isolation, poor career prospects, even hatred from complete strangers. Because I'm following a rule book but there are too many rules to take in so I always slip up. I guarantee that the majority of autistic people will stop being rude if you simply explain these things, instead of being angry at them, and making them feel even worse in a world that is almost like it was built against them.","human_ref_B":"I agree ,it's not a \"get out of jail free\" card , at least it shouldn't be, for bad behavior. However, they can't really do anything about their behavior ,so scolding them won't \"work\" ,it won't improve their behavior as well. Tricky situation, both options seems to suck","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21194.0,"score_ratio":29.5714285714} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fok1655","c_root_id_B":"fojmzyu","created_at_utc_A":1587833440,"created_at_utc_B":1587824977,"score_A":207,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"As someone with Asperger's, I agree that using Autism as an excuse for being shitty is just really bad behaviour. However, it seems that you have given an extremely bad example and seem way too judgemental towards autistic people than you need to be. >Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. Is this not a sign that they genuinely didn't know that what they said is offensive? If anything, this is not asshole behaviour because they apologised to you and felt really bad for hurting you. These poor people are definitely trying to be better in a world that is extremely hostile towards them. How about you try putting yourself in our shoes? The social norms that are second nature to you (eye contact, body language, context, ambiguity) are a complete mystery to us. We have to study these things, and even years after I've socialised with people, read about body language, how to socialise, etc. I still do not pass as normal, and probably never will. I try my absolute best to make those around me feel comfortable, but I often (unintentionally) do weird things that leave a bad impression. This leads to loneliness, isolation, poor career prospects, even hatred from complete strangers. Because I'm following a rule book but there are too many rules to take in so I always slip up. I guarantee that the majority of autistic people will stop being rude if you simply explain these things, instead of being angry at them, and making them feel even worse in a world that is almost like it was built against them.","human_ref_B":"Autism affects how well they comprehend social norms. Yes, through practice the higher functioning people can learn to compensate but it takes specific training for stuff that most people find instinctive. Even in the best cases, they will still sometimes make mistakes. Effectively, they are learning non-verbal communication the same way a normal person learns a foreign language. You would forgive someone speaking a second language for poor word choice, grammar, or not understanding idioms. You should also forgive an autistic person for misreading signals or making a social faux pas.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8463.0,"score_ratio":34.5} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fojxl16","c_root_id_B":"fok1655","created_at_utc_A":1587831431,"created_at_utc_B":1587833440,"score_A":7,"score_B":207,"human_ref_A":"I have mild ASD(that\u2019s what they\u2019re diagnosing it as now), and the range of how it affects me is my behavior(I sometimes do stuff without contemplating how it may disturb what other people are doing) and what I say(not in the way of how it affects people, but I just say things that a \u201cnormal\u201d person wouldn\u2019t say. I\u2019ll give some examples if you\u2019d like.) I don\u2019t want my behavior to be excused, but at the same time I don\u2019t want to be treated as if I\u2019m doing it specifically to cause a disruption or to be a nuisance","human_ref_B":"As someone with Asperger's, I agree that using Autism as an excuse for being shitty is just really bad behaviour. However, it seems that you have given an extremely bad example and seem way too judgemental towards autistic people than you need to be. >Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. Is this not a sign that they genuinely didn't know that what they said is offensive? If anything, this is not asshole behaviour because they apologised to you and felt really bad for hurting you. These poor people are definitely trying to be better in a world that is extremely hostile towards them. How about you try putting yourself in our shoes? The social norms that are second nature to you (eye contact, body language, context, ambiguity) are a complete mystery to us. We have to study these things, and even years after I've socialised with people, read about body language, how to socialise, etc. I still do not pass as normal, and probably never will. I try my absolute best to make those around me feel comfortable, but I often (unintentionally) do weird things that leave a bad impression. This leads to loneliness, isolation, poor career prospects, even hatred from complete strangers. Because I'm following a rule book but there are too many rules to take in so I always slip up. I guarantee that the majority of autistic people will stop being rude if you simply explain these things, instead of being angry at them, and making them feel even worse in a world that is almost like it was built against them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2009.0,"score_ratio":29.5714285714} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fojxq1o","c_root_id_B":"fok1655","created_at_utc_A":1587831510,"created_at_utc_B":1587833440,"score_A":6,"score_B":207,"human_ref_A":"My dad's autistic, I *really* get what you mean. You are right, it's no excuse. It is an explanation, though. And it's up to everyone the autistic person interacts with to decide to let rudeness go because of the autism. No one is under any obligation to be understanding though, that's up to every person themselves. Especially when dealing with someone where rudeness is indirectly part of the diagnosis. The person the autistic might insult is also a person with emotions. It sucks, but stepping on toes without knowing still hurts people. And infuriating people without that intention is part of their problem.","human_ref_B":"As someone with Asperger's, I agree that using Autism as an excuse for being shitty is just really bad behaviour. However, it seems that you have given an extremely bad example and seem way too judgemental towards autistic people than you need to be. >Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. Is this not a sign that they genuinely didn't know that what they said is offensive? If anything, this is not asshole behaviour because they apologised to you and felt really bad for hurting you. These poor people are definitely trying to be better in a world that is extremely hostile towards them. How about you try putting yourself in our shoes? The social norms that are second nature to you (eye contact, body language, context, ambiguity) are a complete mystery to us. We have to study these things, and even years after I've socialised with people, read about body language, how to socialise, etc. I still do not pass as normal, and probably never will. I try my absolute best to make those around me feel comfortable, but I often (unintentionally) do weird things that leave a bad impression. This leads to loneliness, isolation, poor career prospects, even hatred from complete strangers. Because I'm following a rule book but there are too many rules to take in so I always slip up. I guarantee that the majority of autistic people will stop being rude if you simply explain these things, instead of being angry at them, and making them feel even worse in a world that is almost like it was built against them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1930.0,"score_ratio":34.5} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"foj87pl","c_root_id_B":"fojairx","created_at_utc_A":1587812246,"created_at_utc_B":1587814735,"score_A":7,"score_B":75,"human_ref_A":"I agree ,it's not a \"get out of jail free\" card , at least it shouldn't be, for bad behavior. However, they can't really do anything about their behavior ,so scolding them won't \"work\" ,it won't improve their behavior as well. Tricky situation, both options seems to suck","human_ref_B":">They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. So you recognize that they didn't know they were being offensive, but you still feel the need to hold them accountable for their offensiveness? Like, it's polite to shake hands, right? But if you meet somebody who doesn't have hands, or is physically incapable of gripping and shaking their hands well, you wouldn't be like \"wtf this asshole won't shake my hand.\" Scolding an autistic person is looked down upon for kind of similar reasons? Moreover, you're talking about kids. It takes a long time to learn the (often unspoken) intricacies of social propriety and etiquette that the adult world takes for granted. Now imagine that learning those intricacies is like learning calculus, it's just not something that you're naturally good at and why certain things lead to certain results is just mystifying to you. And some guy is now yelling at you because you \"said the wrong thing\" as if he's yelling at you for using the wrong variable in a trigonometry problem. And here's a hot take: learning to accept and deal with obnoxious or even offensive behavior in a kind and compassionate way *is* one of those adult social skills that you should learn about.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2489.0,"score_ratio":10.7142857143} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fojuigv","c_root_id_B":"foj87pl","created_at_utc_A":1587829661,"created_at_utc_B":1587812246,"score_A":63,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"If a particular thing were in an individuals control alone it can be addressed to them. Unfortunately with Autism that is not the case. (1)We, the neuro typical ones have a proper understanding of social customs, we take a cue from our surroundings and past experiences, also our teachings and our memory functions normal. So we are cautious of what we say in our head and what we blurt out. There is a filter. (2)With Autism that is not the case. They face memory issues, they do not take social cues - the cognitive part of the brain, which controls all of this for us simply fails to do its job for Autistic. Example - I have been training Special needs students for quite sometime now. Frankly I have had tough times, accidental insults also. But I have learned that we cannot give meanings to their words. Infact a good thing I noticed is, if I tell them we have to care for the environment or the poor - they absolutely put no extra meanings to my words and will tend all poor people or animals and plants with utmost care. A blind person tumbling upon you because they did not see you cannot be rude. A deaf person not able to lip read in times of corona due to masks says you are not considerate is not being rude. A part of brain not functioning the way it is supposed to does not make them rude. Note - Moreover my only concern - My students have had situations where they blurt out something and the OMG expression that they get in return discourages them from talking and this affects them a lot. Socialising is a constant fear mainly because of this reason. So this is not an excuse rather an accomodation that we as a society need to make - to not add meanings to their words. Just like we have braille Signals for the blind on streets and malls.","human_ref_B":"I agree ,it's not a \"get out of jail free\" card , at least it shouldn't be, for bad behavior. However, they can't really do anything about their behavior ,so scolding them won't \"work\" ,it won't improve their behavior as well. Tricky situation, both options seems to suck","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17415.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fojuigv","c_root_id_B":"fojmzyu","created_at_utc_A":1587829661,"created_at_utc_B":1587824977,"score_A":63,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"If a particular thing were in an individuals control alone it can be addressed to them. Unfortunately with Autism that is not the case. (1)We, the neuro typical ones have a proper understanding of social customs, we take a cue from our surroundings and past experiences, also our teachings and our memory functions normal. So we are cautious of what we say in our head and what we blurt out. There is a filter. (2)With Autism that is not the case. They face memory issues, they do not take social cues - the cognitive part of the brain, which controls all of this for us simply fails to do its job for Autistic. Example - I have been training Special needs students for quite sometime now. Frankly I have had tough times, accidental insults also. But I have learned that we cannot give meanings to their words. Infact a good thing I noticed is, if I tell them we have to care for the environment or the poor - they absolutely put no extra meanings to my words and will tend all poor people or animals and plants with utmost care. A blind person tumbling upon you because they did not see you cannot be rude. A deaf person not able to lip read in times of corona due to masks says you are not considerate is not being rude. A part of brain not functioning the way it is supposed to does not make them rude. Note - Moreover my only concern - My students have had situations where they blurt out something and the OMG expression that they get in return discourages them from talking and this affects them a lot. Socialising is a constant fear mainly because of this reason. So this is not an excuse rather an accomodation that we as a society need to make - to not add meanings to their words. Just like we have braille Signals for the blind on streets and malls.","human_ref_B":"Autism affects how well they comprehend social norms. Yes, through practice the higher functioning people can learn to compensate but it takes specific training for stuff that most people find instinctive. Even in the best cases, they will still sometimes make mistakes. Effectively, they are learning non-verbal communication the same way a normal person learns a foreign language. You would forgive someone speaking a second language for poor word choice, grammar, or not understanding idioms. You should also forgive an autistic person for misreading signals or making a social faux pas.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4684.0,"score_ratio":10.5} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"foj87pl","c_root_id_B":"fok3no3","created_at_utc_A":1587812246,"created_at_utc_B":1587834801,"score_A":7,"score_B":61,"human_ref_A":"I agree ,it's not a \"get out of jail free\" card , at least it shouldn't be, for bad behavior. However, they can't really do anything about their behavior ,so scolding them won't \"work\" ,it won't improve their behavior as well. Tricky situation, both options seems to suck","human_ref_B":"Are you me? I was in the exact same situation in middle school and I thought I was the only one. I had the same mindset at the time too and resented being lumped in with people that were acting out like that with seemingly no consequences. I think it personally affected me so much because it felt... insulting? almost that I was perceived as something that I wasn't when I really just had a different mental health issue and problems at home that made me withdraw socially at the time. I can't speak for the low functioning as I haven't had much interaction with them since, but I've had to deal with a lot of people in my profession who actually have some type of high functioning autism\/ aspergers and what I learned is that I truly believe that they really don't \"see\" it in the same way that I do. Like I can look at a person's facial expression, or the tone of their voice and I get this \"feeling\" like they are annoyed, or I said something offensive and I should drop it, or they are uninterested and I should stop talking, etc. BUT in my experience they are also very receptive to kind of a blunt response like \"I have something to do right now, can we talk later?\" or \"Can you not say that type of thing again?\" In the same way that they don't perceive their actions as being offensive, they don't really get offended easily. Obviously everyone is different but I have experienced this enough times to believe it's pretty common. So I guess my issue would be with the terms \"acting like an ass\" and \"scold\". I do genuinely believe that they can't help it in a sense, but most are receptive to a factual statement letting them know in kind of a neutral, factual way rather than \"scolding them\" or being angry.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22555.0,"score_ratio":8.7142857143} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fok3no3","c_root_id_B":"fojmzyu","created_at_utc_A":1587834801,"created_at_utc_B":1587824977,"score_A":61,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Are you me? I was in the exact same situation in middle school and I thought I was the only one. I had the same mindset at the time too and resented being lumped in with people that were acting out like that with seemingly no consequences. I think it personally affected me so much because it felt... insulting? almost that I was perceived as something that I wasn't when I really just had a different mental health issue and problems at home that made me withdraw socially at the time. I can't speak for the low functioning as I haven't had much interaction with them since, but I've had to deal with a lot of people in my profession who actually have some type of high functioning autism\/ aspergers and what I learned is that I truly believe that they really don't \"see\" it in the same way that I do. Like I can look at a person's facial expression, or the tone of their voice and I get this \"feeling\" like they are annoyed, or I said something offensive and I should drop it, or they are uninterested and I should stop talking, etc. BUT in my experience they are also very receptive to kind of a blunt response like \"I have something to do right now, can we talk later?\" or \"Can you not say that type of thing again?\" In the same way that they don't perceive their actions as being offensive, they don't really get offended easily. Obviously everyone is different but I have experienced this enough times to believe it's pretty common. So I guess my issue would be with the terms \"acting like an ass\" and \"scold\". I do genuinely believe that they can't help it in a sense, but most are receptive to a factual statement letting them know in kind of a neutral, factual way rather than \"scolding them\" or being angry.","human_ref_B":"Autism affects how well they comprehend social norms. Yes, through practice the higher functioning people can learn to compensate but it takes specific training for stuff that most people find instinctive. Even in the best cases, they will still sometimes make mistakes. Effectively, they are learning non-verbal communication the same way a normal person learns a foreign language. You would forgive someone speaking a second language for poor word choice, grammar, or not understanding idioms. You should also forgive an autistic person for misreading signals or making a social faux pas.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9824.0,"score_ratio":10.1666666667} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fok3no3","c_root_id_B":"fojxl16","created_at_utc_A":1587834801,"created_at_utc_B":1587831431,"score_A":61,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Are you me? I was in the exact same situation in middle school and I thought I was the only one. I had the same mindset at the time too and resented being lumped in with people that were acting out like that with seemingly no consequences. I think it personally affected me so much because it felt... insulting? almost that I was perceived as something that I wasn't when I really just had a different mental health issue and problems at home that made me withdraw socially at the time. I can't speak for the low functioning as I haven't had much interaction with them since, but I've had to deal with a lot of people in my profession who actually have some type of high functioning autism\/ aspergers and what I learned is that I truly believe that they really don't \"see\" it in the same way that I do. Like I can look at a person's facial expression, or the tone of their voice and I get this \"feeling\" like they are annoyed, or I said something offensive and I should drop it, or they are uninterested and I should stop talking, etc. BUT in my experience they are also very receptive to kind of a blunt response like \"I have something to do right now, can we talk later?\" or \"Can you not say that type of thing again?\" In the same way that they don't perceive their actions as being offensive, they don't really get offended easily. Obviously everyone is different but I have experienced this enough times to believe it's pretty common. So I guess my issue would be with the terms \"acting like an ass\" and \"scold\". I do genuinely believe that they can't help it in a sense, but most are receptive to a factual statement letting them know in kind of a neutral, factual way rather than \"scolding them\" or being angry.","human_ref_B":"I have mild ASD(that\u2019s what they\u2019re diagnosing it as now), and the range of how it affects me is my behavior(I sometimes do stuff without contemplating how it may disturb what other people are doing) and what I say(not in the way of how it affects people, but I just say things that a \u201cnormal\u201d person wouldn\u2019t say. I\u2019ll give some examples if you\u2019d like.) I don\u2019t want my behavior to be excused, but at the same time I don\u2019t want to be treated as if I\u2019m doing it specifically to cause a disruption or to be a nuisance","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3370.0,"score_ratio":8.7142857143} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fok3no3","c_root_id_B":"fojxq1o","created_at_utc_A":1587834801,"created_at_utc_B":1587831510,"score_A":61,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Are you me? I was in the exact same situation in middle school and I thought I was the only one. I had the same mindset at the time too and resented being lumped in with people that were acting out like that with seemingly no consequences. I think it personally affected me so much because it felt... insulting? almost that I was perceived as something that I wasn't when I really just had a different mental health issue and problems at home that made me withdraw socially at the time. I can't speak for the low functioning as I haven't had much interaction with them since, but I've had to deal with a lot of people in my profession who actually have some type of high functioning autism\/ aspergers and what I learned is that I truly believe that they really don't \"see\" it in the same way that I do. Like I can look at a person's facial expression, or the tone of their voice and I get this \"feeling\" like they are annoyed, or I said something offensive and I should drop it, or they are uninterested and I should stop talking, etc. BUT in my experience they are also very receptive to kind of a blunt response like \"I have something to do right now, can we talk later?\" or \"Can you not say that type of thing again?\" In the same way that they don't perceive their actions as being offensive, they don't really get offended easily. Obviously everyone is different but I have experienced this enough times to believe it's pretty common. So I guess my issue would be with the terms \"acting like an ass\" and \"scold\". I do genuinely believe that they can't help it in a sense, but most are receptive to a factual statement letting them know in kind of a neutral, factual way rather than \"scolding them\" or being angry.","human_ref_B":"My dad's autistic, I *really* get what you mean. You are right, it's no excuse. It is an explanation, though. And it's up to everyone the autistic person interacts with to decide to let rudeness go because of the autism. No one is under any obligation to be understanding though, that's up to every person themselves. Especially when dealing with someone where rudeness is indirectly part of the diagnosis. The person the autistic might insult is also a person with emotions. It sucks, but stepping on toes without knowing still hurts people. And infuriating people without that intention is part of their problem.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3291.0,"score_ratio":10.1666666667} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fokb110","c_root_id_B":"fok92h2","created_at_utc_A":1587838718,"created_at_utc_B":1587837677,"score_A":25,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"> I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. The thing is, if we make a big push to say \"Alright everyone, it's okay to scold autistic people when they say something offensive!\" then most people just *aren't gonna do it right*. They're not gonna offer clear reasoning for why what was said was wrong, they're not gonna be constructive and helpful. Most people are just gonna say \"Fuck off asshole\". That doesn't help anyone. The whole thing about autism, as you know, is that they don't know *why* what they're doing is wrong. So punishing them for it without an explanation for why is just going to confuse them and likely be counter-productive. As you've said, there are therapists who are trained specifically to help with these problems. They're *trained*. They (presumably) know how to teach these kids in a way that's effective. So I think it would be better to let *them* do the job rather than try and get a bunch of uneducated, ignorant and possibly uncaring people to do it, which is just going to make things worse.","human_ref_B":"Should you scold a tourette sufferer for swearing? How is that relevantly different? If autistic people are free game to be scolded for such acts that they do with increased probability should they passively take such high amounts of negative scorn? Or do we declare them societally incompatible and exile them as too hard to interact with safely? It would be cruel to make persons with broken legs to walk the same amount as everybody else hence we provide wheelchairs and don't build stairs unneccesarily. Being so different means a lot of adaptation from their part, most of dimensions most of people will never know about, so being annoyed at the small adjustments it makes for others life is not at all proportionate. It is very okay as a socially more competent person to give feedback and hints to the less socially fortunate, even a bit more than would be appropriate towards an average person. It would be good that there \"takes a village\" goal of having also the autistic population to be as competent as is feasibly possible. In that sense designating a population as \"beyond hope\" could do them a disservice. But gatekeeping dignity behind a social proficiency level is probably destructive and excusing hate will just make a bad situation worse.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1041.0,"score_ratio":1.0869565217} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fok92h2","c_root_id_B":"foj87pl","created_at_utc_A":1587837677,"created_at_utc_B":1587812246,"score_A":23,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Should you scold a tourette sufferer for swearing? How is that relevantly different? If autistic people are free game to be scolded for such acts that they do with increased probability should they passively take such high amounts of negative scorn? Or do we declare them societally incompatible and exile them as too hard to interact with safely? It would be cruel to make persons with broken legs to walk the same amount as everybody else hence we provide wheelchairs and don't build stairs unneccesarily. Being so different means a lot of adaptation from their part, most of dimensions most of people will never know about, so being annoyed at the small adjustments it makes for others life is not at all proportionate. It is very okay as a socially more competent person to give feedback and hints to the less socially fortunate, even a bit more than would be appropriate towards an average person. It would be good that there \"takes a village\" goal of having also the autistic population to be as competent as is feasibly possible. In that sense designating a population as \"beyond hope\" could do them a disservice. But gatekeeping dignity behind a social proficiency level is probably destructive and excusing hate will just make a bad situation worse.","human_ref_B":"I agree ,it's not a \"get out of jail free\" card , at least it shouldn't be, for bad behavior. However, they can't really do anything about their behavior ,so scolding them won't \"work\" ,it won't improve their behavior as well. Tricky situation, both options seems to suck","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25431.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fojmzyu","c_root_id_B":"fok92h2","created_at_utc_A":1587824977,"created_at_utc_B":1587837677,"score_A":6,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Autism affects how well they comprehend social norms. Yes, through practice the higher functioning people can learn to compensate but it takes specific training for stuff that most people find instinctive. Even in the best cases, they will still sometimes make mistakes. Effectively, they are learning non-verbal communication the same way a normal person learns a foreign language. You would forgive someone speaking a second language for poor word choice, grammar, or not understanding idioms. You should also forgive an autistic person for misreading signals or making a social faux pas.","human_ref_B":"Should you scold a tourette sufferer for swearing? How is that relevantly different? If autistic people are free game to be scolded for such acts that they do with increased probability should they passively take such high amounts of negative scorn? Or do we declare them societally incompatible and exile them as too hard to interact with safely? It would be cruel to make persons with broken legs to walk the same amount as everybody else hence we provide wheelchairs and don't build stairs unneccesarily. Being so different means a lot of adaptation from their part, most of dimensions most of people will never know about, so being annoyed at the small adjustments it makes for others life is not at all proportionate. It is very okay as a socially more competent person to give feedback and hints to the less socially fortunate, even a bit more than would be appropriate towards an average person. It would be good that there \"takes a village\" goal of having also the autistic population to be as competent as is feasibly possible. In that sense designating a population as \"beyond hope\" could do them a disservice. But gatekeeping dignity behind a social proficiency level is probably destructive and excusing hate will just make a bad situation worse.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12700.0,"score_ratio":3.8333333333} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fojxl16","c_root_id_B":"fok92h2","created_at_utc_A":1587831431,"created_at_utc_B":1587837677,"score_A":7,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"I have mild ASD(that\u2019s what they\u2019re diagnosing it as now), and the range of how it affects me is my behavior(I sometimes do stuff without contemplating how it may disturb what other people are doing) and what I say(not in the way of how it affects people, but I just say things that a \u201cnormal\u201d person wouldn\u2019t say. I\u2019ll give some examples if you\u2019d like.) I don\u2019t want my behavior to be excused, but at the same time I don\u2019t want to be treated as if I\u2019m doing it specifically to cause a disruption or to be a nuisance","human_ref_B":"Should you scold a tourette sufferer for swearing? How is that relevantly different? If autistic people are free game to be scolded for such acts that they do with increased probability should they passively take such high amounts of negative scorn? Or do we declare them societally incompatible and exile them as too hard to interact with safely? It would be cruel to make persons with broken legs to walk the same amount as everybody else hence we provide wheelchairs and don't build stairs unneccesarily. Being so different means a lot of adaptation from their part, most of dimensions most of people will never know about, so being annoyed at the small adjustments it makes for others life is not at all proportionate. It is very okay as a socially more competent person to give feedback and hints to the less socially fortunate, even a bit more than would be appropriate towards an average person. It would be good that there \"takes a village\" goal of having also the autistic population to be as competent as is feasibly possible. In that sense designating a population as \"beyond hope\" could do them a disservice. But gatekeeping dignity behind a social proficiency level is probably destructive and excusing hate will just make a bad situation worse.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6246.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fok92h2","c_root_id_B":"fojxq1o","created_at_utc_A":1587837677,"created_at_utc_B":1587831510,"score_A":23,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Should you scold a tourette sufferer for swearing? How is that relevantly different? If autistic people are free game to be scolded for such acts that they do with increased probability should they passively take such high amounts of negative scorn? Or do we declare them societally incompatible and exile them as too hard to interact with safely? It would be cruel to make persons with broken legs to walk the same amount as everybody else hence we provide wheelchairs and don't build stairs unneccesarily. Being so different means a lot of adaptation from their part, most of dimensions most of people will never know about, so being annoyed at the small adjustments it makes for others life is not at all proportionate. It is very okay as a socially more competent person to give feedback and hints to the less socially fortunate, even a bit more than would be appropriate towards an average person. It would be good that there \"takes a village\" goal of having also the autistic population to be as competent as is feasibly possible. In that sense designating a population as \"beyond hope\" could do them a disservice. But gatekeeping dignity behind a social proficiency level is probably destructive and excusing hate will just make a bad situation worse.","human_ref_B":"My dad's autistic, I *really* get what you mean. You are right, it's no excuse. It is an explanation, though. And it's up to everyone the autistic person interacts with to decide to let rudeness go because of the autism. No one is under any obligation to be understanding though, that's up to every person themselves. Especially when dealing with someone where rudeness is indirectly part of the diagnosis. The person the autistic might insult is also a person with emotions. It sucks, but stepping on toes without knowing still hurts people. And infuriating people without that intention is part of their problem.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6167.0,"score_ratio":3.8333333333} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"foj87pl","c_root_id_B":"fokb110","created_at_utc_A":1587812246,"created_at_utc_B":1587838718,"score_A":7,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"I agree ,it's not a \"get out of jail free\" card , at least it shouldn't be, for bad behavior. However, they can't really do anything about their behavior ,so scolding them won't \"work\" ,it won't improve their behavior as well. Tricky situation, both options seems to suck","human_ref_B":"> I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. The thing is, if we make a big push to say \"Alright everyone, it's okay to scold autistic people when they say something offensive!\" then most people just *aren't gonna do it right*. They're not gonna offer clear reasoning for why what was said was wrong, they're not gonna be constructive and helpful. Most people are just gonna say \"Fuck off asshole\". That doesn't help anyone. The whole thing about autism, as you know, is that they don't know *why* what they're doing is wrong. So punishing them for it without an explanation for why is just going to confuse them and likely be counter-productive. As you've said, there are therapists who are trained specifically to help with these problems. They're *trained*. They (presumably) know how to teach these kids in a way that's effective. So I think it would be better to let *them* do the job rather than try and get a bunch of uneducated, ignorant and possibly uncaring people to do it, which is just going to make things worse.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26472.0,"score_ratio":3.5714285714} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fokb110","c_root_id_B":"fojmzyu","created_at_utc_A":1587838718,"created_at_utc_B":1587824977,"score_A":25,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. The thing is, if we make a big push to say \"Alright everyone, it's okay to scold autistic people when they say something offensive!\" then most people just *aren't gonna do it right*. They're not gonna offer clear reasoning for why what was said was wrong, they're not gonna be constructive and helpful. Most people are just gonna say \"Fuck off asshole\". That doesn't help anyone. The whole thing about autism, as you know, is that they don't know *why* what they're doing is wrong. So punishing them for it without an explanation for why is just going to confuse them and likely be counter-productive. As you've said, there are therapists who are trained specifically to help with these problems. They're *trained*. They (presumably) know how to teach these kids in a way that's effective. So I think it would be better to let *them* do the job rather than try and get a bunch of uneducated, ignorant and possibly uncaring people to do it, which is just going to make things worse.","human_ref_B":"Autism affects how well they comprehend social norms. Yes, through practice the higher functioning people can learn to compensate but it takes specific training for stuff that most people find instinctive. Even in the best cases, they will still sometimes make mistakes. Effectively, they are learning non-verbal communication the same way a normal person learns a foreign language. You would forgive someone speaking a second language for poor word choice, grammar, or not understanding idioms. You should also forgive an autistic person for misreading signals or making a social faux pas.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13741.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fokb110","c_root_id_B":"fojxl16","created_at_utc_A":1587838718,"created_at_utc_B":1587831431,"score_A":25,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. The thing is, if we make a big push to say \"Alright everyone, it's okay to scold autistic people when they say something offensive!\" then most people just *aren't gonna do it right*. They're not gonna offer clear reasoning for why what was said was wrong, they're not gonna be constructive and helpful. Most people are just gonna say \"Fuck off asshole\". That doesn't help anyone. The whole thing about autism, as you know, is that they don't know *why* what they're doing is wrong. So punishing them for it without an explanation for why is just going to confuse them and likely be counter-productive. As you've said, there are therapists who are trained specifically to help with these problems. They're *trained*. They (presumably) know how to teach these kids in a way that's effective. So I think it would be better to let *them* do the job rather than try and get a bunch of uneducated, ignorant and possibly uncaring people to do it, which is just going to make things worse.","human_ref_B":"I have mild ASD(that\u2019s what they\u2019re diagnosing it as now), and the range of how it affects me is my behavior(I sometimes do stuff without contemplating how it may disturb what other people are doing) and what I say(not in the way of how it affects people, but I just say things that a \u201cnormal\u201d person wouldn\u2019t say. I\u2019ll give some examples if you\u2019d like.) I don\u2019t want my behavior to be excused, but at the same time I don\u2019t want to be treated as if I\u2019m doing it specifically to cause a disruption or to be a nuisance","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7287.0,"score_ratio":3.5714285714} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fokb110","c_root_id_B":"fojxq1o","created_at_utc_A":1587838718,"created_at_utc_B":1587831510,"score_A":25,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. The thing is, if we make a big push to say \"Alright everyone, it's okay to scold autistic people when they say something offensive!\" then most people just *aren't gonna do it right*. They're not gonna offer clear reasoning for why what was said was wrong, they're not gonna be constructive and helpful. Most people are just gonna say \"Fuck off asshole\". That doesn't help anyone. The whole thing about autism, as you know, is that they don't know *why* what they're doing is wrong. So punishing them for it without an explanation for why is just going to confuse them and likely be counter-productive. As you've said, there are therapists who are trained specifically to help with these problems. They're *trained*. They (presumably) know how to teach these kids in a way that's effective. So I think it would be better to let *them* do the job rather than try and get a bunch of uneducated, ignorant and possibly uncaring people to do it, which is just going to make things worse.","human_ref_B":"My dad's autistic, I *really* get what you mean. You are right, it's no excuse. It is an explanation, though. And it's up to everyone the autistic person interacts with to decide to let rudeness go because of the autism. No one is under any obligation to be understanding though, that's up to every person themselves. Especially when dealing with someone where rudeness is indirectly part of the diagnosis. The person the autistic might insult is also a person with emotions. It sucks, but stepping on toes without knowing still hurts people. And infuriating people without that intention is part of their problem.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7208.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"foj87pl","c_root_id_B":"fokpyno","created_at_utc_A":1587812246,"created_at_utc_B":1587846724,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I agree ,it's not a \"get out of jail free\" card , at least it shouldn't be, for bad behavior. However, they can't really do anything about their behavior ,so scolding them won't \"work\" ,it won't improve their behavior as well. Tricky situation, both options seems to suck","human_ref_B":"Depends on the level of autism. My daughter is very severe, non verbal etc. if we are out at a grocery store or something and she has a melt down or other over the top behavior it\u2019s autism. Many people paint autism with this high functioning brush but there are very severe impossible to function on their own folks out there who deserve a certain level of leeway for their behavior. She 100% cannot control herself at times. It greatly limits her activities and quality of life. We can\u2019t expect her to never be in public. I just hope we can empathize a bit with folks who have differences on the spectrum.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34478.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fojmzyu","c_root_id_B":"fokpyno","created_at_utc_A":1587824977,"created_at_utc_B":1587846724,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Autism affects how well they comprehend social norms. Yes, through practice the higher functioning people can learn to compensate but it takes specific training for stuff that most people find instinctive. Even in the best cases, they will still sometimes make mistakes. Effectively, they are learning non-verbal communication the same way a normal person learns a foreign language. You would forgive someone speaking a second language for poor word choice, grammar, or not understanding idioms. You should also forgive an autistic person for misreading signals or making a social faux pas.","human_ref_B":"Depends on the level of autism. My daughter is very severe, non verbal etc. if we are out at a grocery store or something and she has a melt down or other over the top behavior it\u2019s autism. Many people paint autism with this high functioning brush but there are very severe impossible to function on their own folks out there who deserve a certain level of leeway for their behavior. She 100% cannot control herself at times. It greatly limits her activities and quality of life. We can\u2019t expect her to never be in public. I just hope we can empathize a bit with folks who have differences on the spectrum.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21747.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fokpyno","c_root_id_B":"fojxl16","created_at_utc_A":1587846724,"created_at_utc_B":1587831431,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Depends on the level of autism. My daughter is very severe, non verbal etc. if we are out at a grocery store or something and she has a melt down or other over the top behavior it\u2019s autism. Many people paint autism with this high functioning brush but there are very severe impossible to function on their own folks out there who deserve a certain level of leeway for their behavior. She 100% cannot control herself at times. It greatly limits her activities and quality of life. We can\u2019t expect her to never be in public. I just hope we can empathize a bit with folks who have differences on the spectrum.","human_ref_B":"I have mild ASD(that\u2019s what they\u2019re diagnosing it as now), and the range of how it affects me is my behavior(I sometimes do stuff without contemplating how it may disturb what other people are doing) and what I say(not in the way of how it affects people, but I just say things that a \u201cnormal\u201d person wouldn\u2019t say. I\u2019ll give some examples if you\u2019d like.) I don\u2019t want my behavior to be excused, but at the same time I don\u2019t want to be treated as if I\u2019m doing it specifically to cause a disruption or to be a nuisance","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15293.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fojxq1o","c_root_id_B":"fokpyno","created_at_utc_A":1587831510,"created_at_utc_B":1587846724,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"My dad's autistic, I *really* get what you mean. You are right, it's no excuse. It is an explanation, though. And it's up to everyone the autistic person interacts with to decide to let rudeness go because of the autism. No one is under any obligation to be understanding though, that's up to every person themselves. Especially when dealing with someone where rudeness is indirectly part of the diagnosis. The person the autistic might insult is also a person with emotions. It sucks, but stepping on toes without knowing still hurts people. And infuriating people without that intention is part of their problem.","human_ref_B":"Depends on the level of autism. My daughter is very severe, non verbal etc. if we are out at a grocery store or something and she has a melt down or other over the top behavior it\u2019s autism. Many people paint autism with this high functioning brush but there are very severe impossible to function on their own folks out there who deserve a certain level of leeway for their behavior. She 100% cannot control herself at times. It greatly limits her activities and quality of life. We can\u2019t expect her to never be in public. I just hope we can empathize a bit with folks who have differences on the spectrum.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15214.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"g7rn2h","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Autism shouldn\u2019t be an excuse for bad behavior I was misdiagnosed with aspergers when I was in middle school, which means I was put in some sorts of therapies with actually autistic (both \u00ab\u00a0Low\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0high\u00a0\u00bb functioning, not fan of the terms) kids. Some of them were great, just socially awkward like a lot of NTs also are, but most were obnoxious. They\u2019d say horrible things to me and burst into tears when I reacted because they didn\u2019t know they were being offensive. They\u2019d just be disrespectful as fuck. Now, therapy is meant to correct that, but a lot of people with autism keep a bad behavior and public opinion says we\u2019re supposed to accept it because it\u2019s \u00ab\u00a0not their fault \u00bb. Dealing with autistic people is not something that everyone is willing to do, and I don\u2019t know why it\u2019s looked down upon to scold an autistic person for acting like an ass. But open to my opinion changing so yeah","c_root_id_A":"fojxl16","c_root_id_B":"fojmzyu","created_at_utc_A":1587831431,"created_at_utc_B":1587824977,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I have mild ASD(that\u2019s what they\u2019re diagnosing it as now), and the range of how it affects me is my behavior(I sometimes do stuff without contemplating how it may disturb what other people are doing) and what I say(not in the way of how it affects people, but I just say things that a \u201cnormal\u201d person wouldn\u2019t say. I\u2019ll give some examples if you\u2019d like.) I don\u2019t want my behavior to be excused, but at the same time I don\u2019t want to be treated as if I\u2019m doing it specifically to cause a disruption or to be a nuisance","human_ref_B":"Autism affects how well they comprehend social norms. Yes, through practice the higher functioning people can learn to compensate but it takes specific training for stuff that most people find instinctive. Even in the best cases, they will still sometimes make mistakes. Effectively, they are learning non-verbal communication the same way a normal person learns a foreign language. You would forgive someone speaking a second language for poor word choice, grammar, or not understanding idioms. You should also forgive an autistic person for misreading signals or making a social faux pas.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6454.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff69foc","c_root_id_B":"ff69sta","created_at_utc_A":1579622232,"created_at_utc_B":1579622467,"score_A":147,"score_B":1063,"human_ref_A":"It is similar to grave robbing, yes. You should also keep in mind that if the mummies, and the belongings inside the tomb had not been removed they would have been robbed by someone else. At least this way instead of the artifacts being sold on the black market they are kept safely in a museum. Also, and this is just my opinion, ownership does not follow after death. We are free to do whatever we\u2019d like with the dead and their belongings. For example, when I die you are free to dig me up and display me anywhere you\u2019d like simply because how would I ever know or stop you.","human_ref_B":"Consider the purpose of mummification: > In order to live for all eternity and be presented in front of Osiris, the body of the deceased had to be preserved by mummification, so that the soul could reunite with it, and take pleasure in the afterlife. Now consider what happened to *other* mummies that weren't placed in museums: > In the Middle Ages, based on a mistranslation from the Arabic term for bitumen, it was thought that mummies possessed healing properties. As a result, it became common practice to grind Egyptian mummies into a powder to be sold and used as medicine. This (and similar practices) continued up until the late 19th century. Now considering that whoever was mummified wanted their body to remain intact - where do you think they might prefer to be? Left in a tomb at the mercy of grave robbers, or kept in a climate-controlled museum, their body attended by groups of workers whose sole interest is in seeing it preserved?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":235.0,"score_ratio":7.231292517} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff69sta","c_root_id_B":"ff69fo3","created_at_utc_A":1579622467,"created_at_utc_B":1579622232,"score_A":1063,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"Consider the purpose of mummification: > In order to live for all eternity and be presented in front of Osiris, the body of the deceased had to be preserved by mummification, so that the soul could reunite with it, and take pleasure in the afterlife. Now consider what happened to *other* mummies that weren't placed in museums: > In the Middle Ages, based on a mistranslation from the Arabic term for bitumen, it was thought that mummies possessed healing properties. As a result, it became common practice to grind Egyptian mummies into a powder to be sold and used as medicine. This (and similar practices) continued up until the late 19th century. Now considering that whoever was mummified wanted their body to remain intact - where do you think they might prefer to be? Left in a tomb at the mercy of grave robbers, or kept in a climate-controlled museum, their body attended by groups of workers whose sole interest is in seeing it preserved?","human_ref_B":"Who cares? They were alive thousands of years ago. Who is being disrespected? A dead person. Who can't possibly care. Respect for the dead is for their surviving loved ones. After a few thousand years, it just doesn't matter.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":235.0,"score_ratio":21.26} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff69sta","c_root_id_B":"ff69h0h","created_at_utc_A":1579622467,"created_at_utc_B":1579622257,"score_A":1063,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Consider the purpose of mummification: > In order to live for all eternity and be presented in front of Osiris, the body of the deceased had to be preserved by mummification, so that the soul could reunite with it, and take pleasure in the afterlife. Now consider what happened to *other* mummies that weren't placed in museums: > In the Middle Ages, based on a mistranslation from the Arabic term for bitumen, it was thought that mummies possessed healing properties. As a result, it became common practice to grind Egyptian mummies into a powder to be sold and used as medicine. This (and similar practices) continued up until the late 19th century. Now considering that whoever was mummified wanted their body to remain intact - where do you think they might prefer to be? Left in a tomb at the mercy of grave robbers, or kept in a climate-controlled museum, their body attended by groups of workers whose sole interest is in seeing it preserved?","human_ref_B":"I think a better question is why are we averse to displaying modern bodies in public? I think the answer to that is that most of us want to maintain control over what context our bodies and the bodies of people we know are displayed in after we die, and so we control how bodies are handled in general, so that we have some confidence that the same rule applies to us. This doesn't apply to 4000 year old mummies, though - first, this has no implications on anyone alive today, because nobody has been an Egyptian king for millennia. Second, would you really mind if in 4000 years, after everyone who knows anything except maybe written stories about you is long gone, your body will be dug up and displayed in a museum? Personally if I knew that's something that will happen I'd feel honored more than anything.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":210.0,"score_ratio":66.4375} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff69sta","c_root_id_B":"ff69rzs","created_at_utc_A":1579622467,"created_at_utc_B":1579622452,"score_A":1063,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Consider the purpose of mummification: > In order to live for all eternity and be presented in front of Osiris, the body of the deceased had to be preserved by mummification, so that the soul could reunite with it, and take pleasure in the afterlife. Now consider what happened to *other* mummies that weren't placed in museums: > In the Middle Ages, based on a mistranslation from the Arabic term for bitumen, it was thought that mummies possessed healing properties. As a result, it became common practice to grind Egyptian mummies into a powder to be sold and used as medicine. This (and similar practices) continued up until the late 19th century. Now considering that whoever was mummified wanted their body to remain intact - where do you think they might prefer to be? Left in a tomb at the mercy of grave robbers, or kept in a climate-controlled museum, their body attended by groups of workers whose sole interest is in seeing it preserved?","human_ref_B":">We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now Unfortunately, unless they are exhumed and preserved by museums, they would probably be taken by grave robbers and sold on the black market for whatever weird rich people like to do with mummies. At least this way they are preserved for historical knowledge and the appreciation of the public.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15.0,"score_ratio":132.875} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6bm1b","c_root_id_B":"ff69foc","created_at_utc_A":1579623632,"created_at_utc_B":1579622232,"score_A":167,"score_B":147,"human_ref_A":"Im no expert on the subject, but didnt ancient Egyptians desperately **want** to be on museum displays? They made large elaborate tombs and ceremonies to ensure they would be remembered for all eternity. Hell, they built pyramids around mummies! The only reason Egyptians started hiding their mummies in buried tombs was they eventualy realised all that publicity was ensuring grave robbers would come and desecrate the corpse. This was a civilization whos highest aspiration in death was to be entombed in a gigantic pyramid within sight of the capital. I would naturaly assume that being visited by millions of tourists in a safe glass protected guarded humidity controled museum would be a better treatment of a mummy than even the pharaos could dream of.","human_ref_B":"It is similar to grave robbing, yes. You should also keep in mind that if the mummies, and the belongings inside the tomb had not been removed they would have been robbed by someone else. At least this way instead of the artifacts being sold on the black market they are kept safely in a museum. Also, and this is just my opinion, ownership does not follow after death. We are free to do whatever we\u2019d like with the dead and their belongings. For example, when I die you are free to dig me up and display me anywhere you\u2019d like simply because how would I ever know or stop you.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1400.0,"score_ratio":1.1360544218} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6bm1b","c_root_id_B":"ff69fo3","created_at_utc_A":1579623632,"created_at_utc_B":1579622232,"score_A":167,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"Im no expert on the subject, but didnt ancient Egyptians desperately **want** to be on museum displays? They made large elaborate tombs and ceremonies to ensure they would be remembered for all eternity. Hell, they built pyramids around mummies! The only reason Egyptians started hiding their mummies in buried tombs was they eventualy realised all that publicity was ensuring grave robbers would come and desecrate the corpse. This was a civilization whos highest aspiration in death was to be entombed in a gigantic pyramid within sight of the capital. I would naturaly assume that being visited by millions of tourists in a safe glass protected guarded humidity controled museum would be a better treatment of a mummy than even the pharaos could dream of.","human_ref_B":"Who cares? They were alive thousands of years ago. Who is being disrespected? A dead person. Who can't possibly care. Respect for the dead is for their surviving loved ones. After a few thousand years, it just doesn't matter.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1400.0,"score_ratio":3.34} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff69h0h","c_root_id_B":"ff6bm1b","created_at_utc_A":1579622257,"created_at_utc_B":1579623632,"score_A":16,"score_B":167,"human_ref_A":"I think a better question is why are we averse to displaying modern bodies in public? I think the answer to that is that most of us want to maintain control over what context our bodies and the bodies of people we know are displayed in after we die, and so we control how bodies are handled in general, so that we have some confidence that the same rule applies to us. This doesn't apply to 4000 year old mummies, though - first, this has no implications on anyone alive today, because nobody has been an Egyptian king for millennia. Second, would you really mind if in 4000 years, after everyone who knows anything except maybe written stories about you is long gone, your body will be dug up and displayed in a museum? Personally if I knew that's something that will happen I'd feel honored more than anything.","human_ref_B":"Im no expert on the subject, but didnt ancient Egyptians desperately **want** to be on museum displays? They made large elaborate tombs and ceremonies to ensure they would be remembered for all eternity. Hell, they built pyramids around mummies! The only reason Egyptians started hiding their mummies in buried tombs was they eventualy realised all that publicity was ensuring grave robbers would come and desecrate the corpse. This was a civilization whos highest aspiration in death was to be entombed in a gigantic pyramid within sight of the capital. I would naturaly assume that being visited by millions of tourists in a safe glass protected guarded humidity controled museum would be a better treatment of a mummy than even the pharaos could dream of.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1375.0,"score_ratio":10.4375} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6bm1b","c_root_id_B":"ff69rzs","created_at_utc_A":1579623632,"created_at_utc_B":1579622452,"score_A":167,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Im no expert on the subject, but didnt ancient Egyptians desperately **want** to be on museum displays? They made large elaborate tombs and ceremonies to ensure they would be remembered for all eternity. Hell, they built pyramids around mummies! The only reason Egyptians started hiding their mummies in buried tombs was they eventualy realised all that publicity was ensuring grave robbers would come and desecrate the corpse. This was a civilization whos highest aspiration in death was to be entombed in a gigantic pyramid within sight of the capital. I would naturaly assume that being visited by millions of tourists in a safe glass protected guarded humidity controled museum would be a better treatment of a mummy than even the pharaos could dream of.","human_ref_B":">We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now Unfortunately, unless they are exhumed and preserved by museums, they would probably be taken by grave robbers and sold on the black market for whatever weird rich people like to do with mummies. At least this way they are preserved for historical knowledge and the appreciation of the public.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1180.0,"score_ratio":20.875} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6aau3","c_root_id_B":"ff6bm1b","created_at_utc_A":1579622794,"created_at_utc_B":1579623632,"score_A":4,"score_B":167,"human_ref_A":"Is anyone being harmed?","human_ref_B":"Im no expert on the subject, but didnt ancient Egyptians desperately **want** to be on museum displays? They made large elaborate tombs and ceremonies to ensure they would be remembered for all eternity. Hell, they built pyramids around mummies! The only reason Egyptians started hiding their mummies in buried tombs was they eventualy realised all that publicity was ensuring grave robbers would come and desecrate the corpse. This was a civilization whos highest aspiration in death was to be entombed in a gigantic pyramid within sight of the capital. I would naturaly assume that being visited by millions of tourists in a safe glass protected guarded humidity controled museum would be a better treatment of a mummy than even the pharaos could dream of.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":838.0,"score_ratio":41.75} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff69fo3","c_root_id_B":"ff69foc","created_at_utc_A":1579622232,"created_at_utc_B":1579622232,"score_A":50,"score_B":147,"human_ref_A":"Who cares? They were alive thousands of years ago. Who is being disrespected? A dead person. Who can't possibly care. Respect for the dead is for their surviving loved ones. After a few thousand years, it just doesn't matter.","human_ref_B":"It is similar to grave robbing, yes. You should also keep in mind that if the mummies, and the belongings inside the tomb had not been removed they would have been robbed by someone else. At least this way instead of the artifacts being sold on the black market they are kept safely in a museum. Also, and this is just my opinion, ownership does not follow after death. We are free to do whatever we\u2019d like with the dead and their belongings. For example, when I die you are free to dig me up and display me anywhere you\u2019d like simply because how would I ever know or stop you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":0.0,"score_ratio":2.94} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6estv","c_root_id_B":"ff6ejv9","created_at_utc_A":1579625634,"created_at_utc_B":1579625480,"score_A":16,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Archaeologist here. This is quite a popular debate amongst historians\/archaeologists. How I see it is that the display of these extravagant mummies and things of the sort act sort of like advertising. After studying the remains, though culturally insensitive and yes, downright disrespectful, putting them on display gathers both interest in the museum\/artifacts as well as potential funding. As of this moment, it seems a necessary kind of evil. You should read about NAGPRA of you haven't already; there are tons of laws and regulations for similar situations in the United states, and some countries (Greece, Egypt) have used NAGPRA laws as a type of temate for excavation\/repatriation. Hope I helped a little.","human_ref_B":"Yes, you're crazy. Once it's been 10x as many years since your death as you actually lived, you're more valuable as an item to be studied than as a person with your own preferences. If they cut you into 1mm thin cross sections to be scanned to created a 3D rendering of you for a mummy horror video game, it's still of more value than viewing your final \"resting place\" as somehow sacred...as opposed to what it is.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":154.0,"score_ratio":1.2307692308} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6e6py","c_root_id_B":"ff6estv","created_at_utc_A":1579625253,"created_at_utc_B":1579625634,"score_A":10,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Reburying mummies that have already been excavated is likely to destroy them. The process of taking them out of cases and wrappings and everything that had protected them took away their original protective factors. If we tried to rebury them now they would most likely not make it. For intentionally mummified bodies, the idea of having hte body last forever was more important than violating the body. Which means that we can guess they'd probably prefer to have their body violated than to have it be destroyed by reburial.","human_ref_B":"Archaeologist here. This is quite a popular debate amongst historians\/archaeologists. How I see it is that the display of these extravagant mummies and things of the sort act sort of like advertising. After studying the remains, though culturally insensitive and yes, downright disrespectful, putting them on display gathers both interest in the museum\/artifacts as well as potential funding. As of this moment, it seems a necessary kind of evil. You should read about NAGPRA of you haven't already; there are tons of laws and regulations for similar situations in the United states, and some countries (Greece, Egypt) have used NAGPRA laws as a type of temate for excavation\/repatriation. Hope I helped a little.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":381.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff69rzs","c_root_id_B":"ff6estv","created_at_utc_A":1579622452,"created_at_utc_B":1579625634,"score_A":8,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":">We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now Unfortunately, unless they are exhumed and preserved by museums, they would probably be taken by grave robbers and sold on the black market for whatever weird rich people like to do with mummies. At least this way they are preserved for historical knowledge and the appreciation of the public.","human_ref_B":"Archaeologist here. This is quite a popular debate amongst historians\/archaeologists. How I see it is that the display of these extravagant mummies and things of the sort act sort of like advertising. After studying the remains, though culturally insensitive and yes, downright disrespectful, putting them on display gathers both interest in the museum\/artifacts as well as potential funding. As of this moment, it seems a necessary kind of evil. You should read about NAGPRA of you haven't already; there are tons of laws and regulations for similar situations in the United states, and some countries (Greece, Egypt) have used NAGPRA laws as a type of temate for excavation\/repatriation. Hope I helped a little.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3182.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6aau3","c_root_id_B":"ff6estv","created_at_utc_A":1579622794,"created_at_utc_B":1579625634,"score_A":4,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Is anyone being harmed?","human_ref_B":"Archaeologist here. This is quite a popular debate amongst historians\/archaeologists. How I see it is that the display of these extravagant mummies and things of the sort act sort of like advertising. After studying the remains, though culturally insensitive and yes, downright disrespectful, putting them on display gathers both interest in the museum\/artifacts as well as potential funding. As of this moment, it seems a necessary kind of evil. You should read about NAGPRA of you haven't already; there are tons of laws and regulations for similar situations in the United states, and some countries (Greece, Egypt) have used NAGPRA laws as a type of temate for excavation\/repatriation. Hope I helped a little.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2840.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6e6py","c_root_id_B":"ff6ejv9","created_at_utc_A":1579625253,"created_at_utc_B":1579625480,"score_A":10,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Reburying mummies that have already been excavated is likely to destroy them. The process of taking them out of cases and wrappings and everything that had protected them took away their original protective factors. If we tried to rebury them now they would most likely not make it. For intentionally mummified bodies, the idea of having hte body last forever was more important than violating the body. Which means that we can guess they'd probably prefer to have their body violated than to have it be destroyed by reburial.","human_ref_B":"Yes, you're crazy. Once it's been 10x as many years since your death as you actually lived, you're more valuable as an item to be studied than as a person with your own preferences. If they cut you into 1mm thin cross sections to be scanned to created a 3D rendering of you for a mummy horror video game, it's still of more value than viewing your final \"resting place\" as somehow sacred...as opposed to what it is.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":227.0,"score_ratio":1.3} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff69rzs","c_root_id_B":"ff6ejv9","created_at_utc_A":1579622452,"created_at_utc_B":1579625480,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":">We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now Unfortunately, unless they are exhumed and preserved by museums, they would probably be taken by grave robbers and sold on the black market for whatever weird rich people like to do with mummies. At least this way they are preserved for historical knowledge and the appreciation of the public.","human_ref_B":"Yes, you're crazy. Once it's been 10x as many years since your death as you actually lived, you're more valuable as an item to be studied than as a person with your own preferences. If they cut you into 1mm thin cross sections to be scanned to created a 3D rendering of you for a mummy horror video game, it's still of more value than viewing your final \"resting place\" as somehow sacred...as opposed to what it is.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3028.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6ejv9","c_root_id_B":"ff6aau3","created_at_utc_A":1579625480,"created_at_utc_B":1579622794,"score_A":13,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Yes, you're crazy. Once it's been 10x as many years since your death as you actually lived, you're more valuable as an item to be studied than as a person with your own preferences. If they cut you into 1mm thin cross sections to be scanned to created a 3D rendering of you for a mummy horror video game, it's still of more value than viewing your final \"resting place\" as somehow sacred...as opposed to what it is.","human_ref_B":"Is anyone being harmed?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2686.0,"score_ratio":3.25} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff69rzs","c_root_id_B":"ff6e6py","created_at_utc_A":1579622452,"created_at_utc_B":1579625253,"score_A":8,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now Unfortunately, unless they are exhumed and preserved by museums, they would probably be taken by grave robbers and sold on the black market for whatever weird rich people like to do with mummies. At least this way they are preserved for historical knowledge and the appreciation of the public.","human_ref_B":"Reburying mummies that have already been excavated is likely to destroy them. The process of taking them out of cases and wrappings and everything that had protected them took away their original protective factors. If we tried to rebury them now they would most likely not make it. For intentionally mummified bodies, the idea of having hte body last forever was more important than violating the body. Which means that we can guess they'd probably prefer to have their body violated than to have it be destroyed by reburial.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2801.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6aau3","c_root_id_B":"ff6e6py","created_at_utc_A":1579622794,"created_at_utc_B":1579625253,"score_A":4,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Is anyone being harmed?","human_ref_B":"Reburying mummies that have already been excavated is likely to destroy them. The process of taking them out of cases and wrappings and everything that had protected them took away their original protective factors. If we tried to rebury them now they would most likely not make it. For intentionally mummified bodies, the idea of having hte body last forever was more important than violating the body. Which means that we can guess they'd probably prefer to have their body violated than to have it be destroyed by reburial.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2459.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6n6nx","c_root_id_B":"ff6aau3","created_at_utc_A":1579630771,"created_at_utc_B":1579622794,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"What gives any human that ever lived the right to lay claim to some amount of space on this planet *forever* ? Ideas like that simply don't scale with how much time our race might have on this planet. If I put in my Last Will and Testament that I want to be in my grave for all of time, does that mean no matter what happens tens of thousands of years from now during a generation that might need to make better use of the land I was buried in, they should build their civilization and lives around me? No way. That's an unfair precedent to support for future generations. By all means make requests for what happens after you're gone *to a reasonable extent* , but no human that ever lived or ever will live should be allowed to make requests which must be honored for all of time.","human_ref_B":"Is anyone being harmed?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7977.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6h762","c_root_id_B":"ff6n6nx","created_at_utc_A":1579627125,"created_at_utc_B":1579630771,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"One of the fascinating things we were told when we went to Egypt recently was that in fact pharaohs tombs, along with their mummies, were robbed even \\*during\\* the 4-5 millennia or so that the Egyptian civilization lasted. While tombs were guarded, you can imagine guards could be bribed or attacked, and the history of such an old civilization is much more fragmentary than you'd think, including 2 long foreign occupation periods. As a consequence, priests would often take the mummies and hide them in \"caches\" inside caves or other places. Most mummies were, as a consequence, already \\*not\\* to be found in their original resting places. Another argument is that one of the main purposes of mummification and really the whole having a giant stone triangle as a tomb was so that you could identify your resting place and come back to your body when you resurrected. I guess if you're not gonna find it in the original tomb or pyramid, you might as well go look in the Egyptian museum? And anyhow... I guess when it comes down to it, \"asking people permission\" to display archeological artifacts is a bit of a nonstarter. I'm sure most people from ancient civilizations wouldn't necessarily be cool with us (or would understand) us showing stuff from their religions and life in museums. I think the understanding of preserving and educating others in our shared human cultural legacy is rather modern. And as long as it serves that purpose (and we are respectful, and return artifacts to their countries of origin when possible), isn't that something worth pursuing, even if it wasn't its original purpose?","human_ref_B":"What gives any human that ever lived the right to lay claim to some amount of space on this planet *forever* ? Ideas like that simply don't scale with how much time our race might have on this planet. If I put in my Last Will and Testament that I want to be in my grave for all of time, does that mean no matter what happens tens of thousands of years from now during a generation that might need to make better use of the land I was buried in, they should build their civilization and lives around me? No way. That's an unfair precedent to support for future generations. By all means make requests for what happens after you're gone *to a reasonable extent* , but no human that ever lived or ever will live should be allowed to make requests which must be honored for all of time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3646.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff7ei0j","c_root_id_B":"ff6aau3","created_at_utc_A":1579647691,"created_at_utc_B":1579622794,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"A few questions: It seems you\u2019ve made the assumption that the consent of people who died thousands of years ago is relevant to wether or not we should display their remains. What is your reasoning behind that? If scientific\/educational purposes do not constitute a valid reason to study a deceased person\u2019s body, what is your opinion of autopsies of murder victims or people who die in hospitals? Are there certain individuals who have the right to look at remains, such as museum officials? If so, how do we decide who to exclude from viewing them?","human_ref_B":"Is anyone being harmed?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24897.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6h762","c_root_id_B":"ff7ei0j","created_at_utc_A":1579627125,"created_at_utc_B":1579647691,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"One of the fascinating things we were told when we went to Egypt recently was that in fact pharaohs tombs, along with their mummies, were robbed even \\*during\\* the 4-5 millennia or so that the Egyptian civilization lasted. While tombs were guarded, you can imagine guards could be bribed or attacked, and the history of such an old civilization is much more fragmentary than you'd think, including 2 long foreign occupation periods. As a consequence, priests would often take the mummies and hide them in \"caches\" inside caves or other places. Most mummies were, as a consequence, already \\*not\\* to be found in their original resting places. Another argument is that one of the main purposes of mummification and really the whole having a giant stone triangle as a tomb was so that you could identify your resting place and come back to your body when you resurrected. I guess if you're not gonna find it in the original tomb or pyramid, you might as well go look in the Egyptian museum? And anyhow... I guess when it comes down to it, \"asking people permission\" to display archeological artifacts is a bit of a nonstarter. I'm sure most people from ancient civilizations wouldn't necessarily be cool with us (or would understand) us showing stuff from their religions and life in museums. I think the understanding of preserving and educating others in our shared human cultural legacy is rather modern. And as long as it serves that purpose (and we are respectful, and return artifacts to their countries of origin when possible), isn't that something worth pursuing, even if it wasn't its original purpose?","human_ref_B":"A few questions: It seems you\u2019ve made the assumption that the consent of people who died thousands of years ago is relevant to wether or not we should display their remains. What is your reasoning behind that? If scientific\/educational purposes do not constitute a valid reason to study a deceased person\u2019s body, what is your opinion of autopsies of murder victims or people who die in hospitals? Are there certain individuals who have the right to look at remains, such as museum officials? If so, how do we decide who to exclude from viewing them?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20566.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"erwc9x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: Digging up Mummies and displaying them in museums in barbaric and disrespectful I am a lover of history and museums, but this one I just really don't understand. It's one thing if someone agreed to be mummified and put on display before they died (this is the case with some mummies in the Vatican). But if some Egyptian king thought he was being laid to rest forever in his tomb, we ought to have left him there. We're not better than grave robbers to put his body on display now. I think it's fine to study the artifacts in there with the body and maybe put those on display, because they tell us a lot about those cultures. I understand their value to history. But I don't understand the disrespect of displaying someone's actual body without their permission. Am I crazy?","c_root_id_A":"ff6n906","c_root_id_B":"ff7ei0j","created_at_utc_A":1579630811,"created_at_utc_B":1579647691,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If you're dead, you're dead. Save your respect for the living or the relatives of the living. If you're a mummy everyone you know is dead and it's not disrespectful to shit. There are bigger things to worry about.","human_ref_B":"A few questions: It seems you\u2019ve made the assumption that the consent of people who died thousands of years ago is relevant to wether or not we should display their remains. What is your reasoning behind that? If scientific\/educational purposes do not constitute a valid reason to study a deceased person\u2019s body, what is your opinion of autopsies of murder victims or people who die in hospitals? Are there certain individuals who have the right to look at remains, such as museum officials? If so, how do we decide who to exclude from viewing them?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16880.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"uid5xp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: It is reasonable to segregate athletes by sex rather than gender There is something I do not understand about the debate about transgender people in sports. I believe that most transgender people and allies agree that _sex_ and _gender_ are distinct things. As I understand it, _sex_ refers to biological differences related to reproduction (e.g. pregnancy, lactation) and other physiological differences linked to it (e.g. size), whereas _gender_ refers to a set of social norms and expectations that are _associated with sex but not inextricably tied to it_. By default, cisgender people identify as the gender that \"matches\" their sex, whereas most transgender people identify as the gender that \"mismatches\" their sex. I seem to recall having heard one trans person say that the terms _male\/female_ should be used to refer to _sex_ and that the terms _man\/woman_ should be used to refer to _gender_. I don't know how widely accepted this terminological distinction is. A number of transgender people want to compete in sports alongside athletes of the same gender. But it seems to me that the segregation of athletes has little to do with social norms and everything to do with physiology. In other words, athletes are segregated not by _gender_ but by _sex_. Most transwomen are women by gender but male by sex. If we view the segregation of athletes as one of sex, it ought to be reasonable that transwomen compete alongside cis men. (Transmen who have transitioned medically may present a special problem. I do not know of any good solution to that.) It is possible that I misunderstand something regarding what sex and gender is supposed to be. If you think so, CMV.","c_root_id_A":"i7bp9a7","c_root_id_B":"i7cdbc3","created_at_utc_A":1651689319,"created_at_utc_B":1651698687,"score_A":19,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"So you think trans men that take testosterone should compete with cis women? Sounds like a sure way to not let women compete anymore","human_ref_B":"In actuality, elite sports are generally not segregated by either sex or gender, but by ad-hoc rules. Let's take World Athletics, for example: Looking at the World Athletics rules, eligibility for the male and female categories is defined as follows (C2.1, Technical Rules): > \"3.4 An athlete shall be eligible to compete in men's (or universal) competition if they were either born and, throughout their life, have always been recognised as a male or comply with the applicable Regulations issued pursuant to Rule 3.6.1 of the Technical Rules and are eligible to compete under the Rules and Regulations. > \"3.5 An athlete shall be eligible to compete in women's (or universal) competition if they were either born and, throughout their life, have always been recognised as a female or comply with the applicable Regulations issued pursuant to Rule 3.6.2 of the Technical Rules and are eligible to compete under the Rules and Regulations.\" (Rules 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 are about transgender athletes and we can ignore these for now.) What you will first observe is that (1) the rules are rather vague (what exactly does \"being born male\/female\" or \"been recognised as a male\/female\" mean?) and (2) is a mix of biological and social\/legal criteria. But generally, we can assume for the sake of this discussion that \"being born male\/female\" refers to assigned sex and that being \"recognized as a male\/female\" has some relation to legal sex. And this problem exists because historically, sex categories were motivated by plain old sexism, more concerned with keeping women out of men's spaces than caring about fairness in women's sports. For example, when Madge Syers won the (mixed) world championship in figure skating in 1902, women were promptly banned from the world championships and the sport became segregated: > Syers' entry into the World Championships prompted the ISU to discuss the subject of women competing against men at their next Congress in 1903. The concerns raised were that \"(1) the dress prevents the judges from seeing the feet; (2) a judge might judge a girl to whom he was attached; and (3) it is difficult to compare women with men.\" To address the concerns of the ISU, Syers started the trend of wearing calf-length skirts so judges could see her foot work. The Congress voted six to three in favour of barring women from the championships. Women's soccer was at times entirely banned in some countries (England, Germany) during the 20th century because ... well, men thought that women shouldn't do that. Because the game was not \"fitted for females\" or \"this combative sport is fundamentally foreign to the nature of women\". It wasn't until some 50 years ago that these bans were lifted. A modern day example of sexism in sports is that of Zhang Shan, who won gold in skeet shooting at the 1992 Olympics, when skeet shooting was a mixed event. The consequences were as follows: > This event had been mixed, open to both men and women, since it was introduced to the olympics in 1968. Zhang Shan's 1992 gold was the first medal won by a woman in this mixed event. The International Shooting Union consequently barred women from the 1996 Atlanta games. For the 2000 Sydney games, the International Olympic committee allowed women again, but only in segregated competition. So ... while nowadays fairness and safety concerns also play a role, there's a long history of sexism and male insecurities (there are more examples) that lead to sex segregation being based on more than just biological fairness and safety concerns. Nowadays, with sex segregation being enshrined both in international organizations and sports communities, it's difficult to change it even if wanted to. With that said, the first problem right now \u2013 before we even consider trans athletes \u2013 is that we are shoehorning intersex athletes (or female athletes that have elevated testosterone levels for other reasons) into a binary scheme that is correlated with, but not dependent on competitive advantages related to sex differentiation. We also allow men (but not women) with low levels of testosterone to take exogenous testosterone to bring them up to par with the normal testosterone levels in cis men. Oh, and sex assignment can be pretty arbitrary and now think what this means for a country like China that literally engineers its most promising athletes from birth to win medals. If you ever wondered why Caster Semenya has created so much trouble for World Athletics (formerly the IAAF), it's exactly the problem that \"sex\" is so ill-defined^(1). She's got hyperandrogenism, but she also meets the requirements for the female category to a tee; born female, recognized as female throughout her life, check and check. World Athletics had no way to ban intersex athletes purely because they were born this way; the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) agreed in Chand v. IFA and IAAF that you couldn't ban intersex athletes with hyperandrogenism just because they were born this way, but agreed to make eligibility of women with hyperandrogenism subject to a hormone suppression regime in Semenya v. IAAF, provided that it could be proved that such athletes had otherwise an unfair advantage. Also, those restrictions only applied to athletes participating in so-called restricted events, \"400m races, 400m hurdles races, 800m races, 1500m races, one mile races, and all other Track Events over distances between 400m and one mile (inclusive), whether run alone or as part of a relay event or a Combined Event.\" (Chapter C3.6 of the World Athletics regulations.) Outside of those, cis women can have whatever testosterone levels they naturally have, even if they are well into the male range. No restrictions on testosterone levels during puberty were required, either, even for restricted events. And that's the general problem you are dealing with. Sex categories aren't per se related to physiological performance characteristics. You can absolutely have cis women with male-typical testosterone levels, which on average provide you with a competitive edge similar to that that cis men have. And before you start talking about chromosomes, you can in fact have XX chromosomes, female reproductive organs, and male-typical testosterone levels, as in this case report of an elite youth soccer player. The idea that men and women form two distinct (rather than overlapping) categories for purposes of sports is nothing but a polite fiction. And finally, we have the funny situation that trans women are currently generally subject to *stricter* regulations than cis women with hyperandrogenism. The whole situation is an inglorious mess simply because the way we structure sex categories and the way physiological differences in men and women develop on average are strongly correlated, but are still different, and that matters especially in elite sports when we deal with people who operate outside normal human biological norms. This is and will remain a difficult problem for the foreseeable future, regardless of what you do about trans athletes, because even cis athletes do not neatly fit in two separate boxes. ^1 And if you think World Athletics has a problem, FIFA is much worse. FIFA rules do not even say how they define men and women, just that only men can participate in men's competitions and only women can participate in women's competition. The decision is left to an expert panel, but the regulations are vague enough to support pretty much any decision that the panel wants to arrive at for whatever reasons (including political ones). But FIFA is also an exceedingly corrupt organization, so it's perhaps not surprising that they don't like justiciable criteria.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9368.0,"score_ratio":2.3157894737} {"post_id":"uid5xp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: It is reasonable to segregate athletes by sex rather than gender There is something I do not understand about the debate about transgender people in sports. I believe that most transgender people and allies agree that _sex_ and _gender_ are distinct things. As I understand it, _sex_ refers to biological differences related to reproduction (e.g. pregnancy, lactation) and other physiological differences linked to it (e.g. size), whereas _gender_ refers to a set of social norms and expectations that are _associated with sex but not inextricably tied to it_. By default, cisgender people identify as the gender that \"matches\" their sex, whereas most transgender people identify as the gender that \"mismatches\" their sex. I seem to recall having heard one trans person say that the terms _male\/female_ should be used to refer to _sex_ and that the terms _man\/woman_ should be used to refer to _gender_. I don't know how widely accepted this terminological distinction is. A number of transgender people want to compete in sports alongside athletes of the same gender. But it seems to me that the segregation of athletes has little to do with social norms and everything to do with physiology. In other words, athletes are segregated not by _gender_ but by _sex_. Most transwomen are women by gender but male by sex. If we view the segregation of athletes as one of sex, it ought to be reasonable that transwomen compete alongside cis men. (Transmen who have transitioned medically may present a special problem. I do not know of any good solution to that.) It is possible that I misunderstand something regarding what sex and gender is supposed to be. If you think so, CMV.","c_root_id_A":"i7cdbc3","c_root_id_B":"i7bpz3f","created_at_utc_A":1651698687,"created_at_utc_B":1651689601,"score_A":44,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"In actuality, elite sports are generally not segregated by either sex or gender, but by ad-hoc rules. Let's take World Athletics, for example: Looking at the World Athletics rules, eligibility for the male and female categories is defined as follows (C2.1, Technical Rules): > \"3.4 An athlete shall be eligible to compete in men's (or universal) competition if they were either born and, throughout their life, have always been recognised as a male or comply with the applicable Regulations issued pursuant to Rule 3.6.1 of the Technical Rules and are eligible to compete under the Rules and Regulations. > \"3.5 An athlete shall be eligible to compete in women's (or universal) competition if they were either born and, throughout their life, have always been recognised as a female or comply with the applicable Regulations issued pursuant to Rule 3.6.2 of the Technical Rules and are eligible to compete under the Rules and Regulations.\" (Rules 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 are about transgender athletes and we can ignore these for now.) What you will first observe is that (1) the rules are rather vague (what exactly does \"being born male\/female\" or \"been recognised as a male\/female\" mean?) and (2) is a mix of biological and social\/legal criteria. But generally, we can assume for the sake of this discussion that \"being born male\/female\" refers to assigned sex and that being \"recognized as a male\/female\" has some relation to legal sex. And this problem exists because historically, sex categories were motivated by plain old sexism, more concerned with keeping women out of men's spaces than caring about fairness in women's sports. For example, when Madge Syers won the (mixed) world championship in figure skating in 1902, women were promptly banned from the world championships and the sport became segregated: > Syers' entry into the World Championships prompted the ISU to discuss the subject of women competing against men at their next Congress in 1903. The concerns raised were that \"(1) the dress prevents the judges from seeing the feet; (2) a judge might judge a girl to whom he was attached; and (3) it is difficult to compare women with men.\" To address the concerns of the ISU, Syers started the trend of wearing calf-length skirts so judges could see her foot work. The Congress voted six to three in favour of barring women from the championships. Women's soccer was at times entirely banned in some countries (England, Germany) during the 20th century because ... well, men thought that women shouldn't do that. Because the game was not \"fitted for females\" or \"this combative sport is fundamentally foreign to the nature of women\". It wasn't until some 50 years ago that these bans were lifted. A modern day example of sexism in sports is that of Zhang Shan, who won gold in skeet shooting at the 1992 Olympics, when skeet shooting was a mixed event. The consequences were as follows: > This event had been mixed, open to both men and women, since it was introduced to the olympics in 1968. Zhang Shan's 1992 gold was the first medal won by a woman in this mixed event. The International Shooting Union consequently barred women from the 1996 Atlanta games. For the 2000 Sydney games, the International Olympic committee allowed women again, but only in segregated competition. So ... while nowadays fairness and safety concerns also play a role, there's a long history of sexism and male insecurities (there are more examples) that lead to sex segregation being based on more than just biological fairness and safety concerns. Nowadays, with sex segregation being enshrined both in international organizations and sports communities, it's difficult to change it even if wanted to. With that said, the first problem right now \u2013 before we even consider trans athletes \u2013 is that we are shoehorning intersex athletes (or female athletes that have elevated testosterone levels for other reasons) into a binary scheme that is correlated with, but not dependent on competitive advantages related to sex differentiation. We also allow men (but not women) with low levels of testosterone to take exogenous testosterone to bring them up to par with the normal testosterone levels in cis men. Oh, and sex assignment can be pretty arbitrary and now think what this means for a country like China that literally engineers its most promising athletes from birth to win medals. If you ever wondered why Caster Semenya has created so much trouble for World Athletics (formerly the IAAF), it's exactly the problem that \"sex\" is so ill-defined^(1). She's got hyperandrogenism, but she also meets the requirements for the female category to a tee; born female, recognized as female throughout her life, check and check. World Athletics had no way to ban intersex athletes purely because they were born this way; the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) agreed in Chand v. IFA and IAAF that you couldn't ban intersex athletes with hyperandrogenism just because they were born this way, but agreed to make eligibility of women with hyperandrogenism subject to a hormone suppression regime in Semenya v. IAAF, provided that it could be proved that such athletes had otherwise an unfair advantage. Also, those restrictions only applied to athletes participating in so-called restricted events, \"400m races, 400m hurdles races, 800m races, 1500m races, one mile races, and all other Track Events over distances between 400m and one mile (inclusive), whether run alone or as part of a relay event or a Combined Event.\" (Chapter C3.6 of the World Athletics regulations.) Outside of those, cis women can have whatever testosterone levels they naturally have, even if they are well into the male range. No restrictions on testosterone levels during puberty were required, either, even for restricted events. And that's the general problem you are dealing with. Sex categories aren't per se related to physiological performance characteristics. You can absolutely have cis women with male-typical testosterone levels, which on average provide you with a competitive edge similar to that that cis men have. And before you start talking about chromosomes, you can in fact have XX chromosomes, female reproductive organs, and male-typical testosterone levels, as in this case report of an elite youth soccer player. The idea that men and women form two distinct (rather than overlapping) categories for purposes of sports is nothing but a polite fiction. And finally, we have the funny situation that trans women are currently generally subject to *stricter* regulations than cis women with hyperandrogenism. The whole situation is an inglorious mess simply because the way we structure sex categories and the way physiological differences in men and women develop on average are strongly correlated, but are still different, and that matters especially in elite sports when we deal with people who operate outside normal human biological norms. This is and will remain a difficult problem for the foreseeable future, regardless of what you do about trans athletes, because even cis athletes do not neatly fit in two separate boxes. ^1 And if you think World Athletics has a problem, FIFA is much worse. FIFA rules do not even say how they define men and women, just that only men can participate in men's competitions and only women can participate in women's competition. The decision is left to an expert panel, but the regulations are vague enough to support pretty much any decision that the panel wants to arrive at for whatever reasons (including political ones). But FIFA is also an exceedingly corrupt organization, so it's perhaps not surprising that they don't like justiciable criteria.","human_ref_B":"I think it would be worth clarifying what exactly you mean by segregating athletes by sex. How should we segregate them? By chromosomes? By genitals? Hormone levels? Gamete production? Gonads?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9086.0,"score_ratio":3.3846153846} {"post_id":"uid5xp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: It is reasonable to segregate athletes by sex rather than gender There is something I do not understand about the debate about transgender people in sports. I believe that most transgender people and allies agree that _sex_ and _gender_ are distinct things. As I understand it, _sex_ refers to biological differences related to reproduction (e.g. pregnancy, lactation) and other physiological differences linked to it (e.g. size), whereas _gender_ refers to a set of social norms and expectations that are _associated with sex but not inextricably tied to it_. By default, cisgender people identify as the gender that \"matches\" their sex, whereas most transgender people identify as the gender that \"mismatches\" their sex. I seem to recall having heard one trans person say that the terms _male\/female_ should be used to refer to _sex_ and that the terms _man\/woman_ should be used to refer to _gender_. I don't know how widely accepted this terminological distinction is. A number of transgender people want to compete in sports alongside athletes of the same gender. But it seems to me that the segregation of athletes has little to do with social norms and everything to do with physiology. In other words, athletes are segregated not by _gender_ but by _sex_. Most transwomen are women by gender but male by sex. If we view the segregation of athletes as one of sex, it ought to be reasonable that transwomen compete alongside cis men. (Transmen who have transitioned medically may present a special problem. I do not know of any good solution to that.) It is possible that I misunderstand something regarding what sex and gender is supposed to be. If you think so, CMV.","c_root_id_A":"i7cdbc3","c_root_id_B":"i7c6u80","created_at_utc_A":1651698687,"created_at_utc_B":1651696179,"score_A":44,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"In actuality, elite sports are generally not segregated by either sex or gender, but by ad-hoc rules. Let's take World Athletics, for example: Looking at the World Athletics rules, eligibility for the male and female categories is defined as follows (C2.1, Technical Rules): > \"3.4 An athlete shall be eligible to compete in men's (or universal) competition if they were either born and, throughout their life, have always been recognised as a male or comply with the applicable Regulations issued pursuant to Rule 3.6.1 of the Technical Rules and are eligible to compete under the Rules and Regulations. > \"3.5 An athlete shall be eligible to compete in women's (or universal) competition if they were either born and, throughout their life, have always been recognised as a female or comply with the applicable Regulations issued pursuant to Rule 3.6.2 of the Technical Rules and are eligible to compete under the Rules and Regulations.\" (Rules 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 are about transgender athletes and we can ignore these for now.) What you will first observe is that (1) the rules are rather vague (what exactly does \"being born male\/female\" or \"been recognised as a male\/female\" mean?) and (2) is a mix of biological and social\/legal criteria. But generally, we can assume for the sake of this discussion that \"being born male\/female\" refers to assigned sex and that being \"recognized as a male\/female\" has some relation to legal sex. And this problem exists because historically, sex categories were motivated by plain old sexism, more concerned with keeping women out of men's spaces than caring about fairness in women's sports. For example, when Madge Syers won the (mixed) world championship in figure skating in 1902, women were promptly banned from the world championships and the sport became segregated: > Syers' entry into the World Championships prompted the ISU to discuss the subject of women competing against men at their next Congress in 1903. The concerns raised were that \"(1) the dress prevents the judges from seeing the feet; (2) a judge might judge a girl to whom he was attached; and (3) it is difficult to compare women with men.\" To address the concerns of the ISU, Syers started the trend of wearing calf-length skirts so judges could see her foot work. The Congress voted six to three in favour of barring women from the championships. Women's soccer was at times entirely banned in some countries (England, Germany) during the 20th century because ... well, men thought that women shouldn't do that. Because the game was not \"fitted for females\" or \"this combative sport is fundamentally foreign to the nature of women\". It wasn't until some 50 years ago that these bans were lifted. A modern day example of sexism in sports is that of Zhang Shan, who won gold in skeet shooting at the 1992 Olympics, when skeet shooting was a mixed event. The consequences were as follows: > This event had been mixed, open to both men and women, since it was introduced to the olympics in 1968. Zhang Shan's 1992 gold was the first medal won by a woman in this mixed event. The International Shooting Union consequently barred women from the 1996 Atlanta games. For the 2000 Sydney games, the International Olympic committee allowed women again, but only in segregated competition. So ... while nowadays fairness and safety concerns also play a role, there's a long history of sexism and male insecurities (there are more examples) that lead to sex segregation being based on more than just biological fairness and safety concerns. Nowadays, with sex segregation being enshrined both in international organizations and sports communities, it's difficult to change it even if wanted to. With that said, the first problem right now \u2013 before we even consider trans athletes \u2013 is that we are shoehorning intersex athletes (or female athletes that have elevated testosterone levels for other reasons) into a binary scheme that is correlated with, but not dependent on competitive advantages related to sex differentiation. We also allow men (but not women) with low levels of testosterone to take exogenous testosterone to bring them up to par with the normal testosterone levels in cis men. Oh, and sex assignment can be pretty arbitrary and now think what this means for a country like China that literally engineers its most promising athletes from birth to win medals. If you ever wondered why Caster Semenya has created so much trouble for World Athletics (formerly the IAAF), it's exactly the problem that \"sex\" is so ill-defined^(1). She's got hyperandrogenism, but she also meets the requirements for the female category to a tee; born female, recognized as female throughout her life, check and check. World Athletics had no way to ban intersex athletes purely because they were born this way; the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) agreed in Chand v. IFA and IAAF that you couldn't ban intersex athletes with hyperandrogenism just because they were born this way, but agreed to make eligibility of women with hyperandrogenism subject to a hormone suppression regime in Semenya v. IAAF, provided that it could be proved that such athletes had otherwise an unfair advantage. Also, those restrictions only applied to athletes participating in so-called restricted events, \"400m races, 400m hurdles races, 800m races, 1500m races, one mile races, and all other Track Events over distances between 400m and one mile (inclusive), whether run alone or as part of a relay event or a Combined Event.\" (Chapter C3.6 of the World Athletics regulations.) Outside of those, cis women can have whatever testosterone levels they naturally have, even if they are well into the male range. No restrictions on testosterone levels during puberty were required, either, even for restricted events. And that's the general problem you are dealing with. Sex categories aren't per se related to physiological performance characteristics. You can absolutely have cis women with male-typical testosterone levels, which on average provide you with a competitive edge similar to that that cis men have. And before you start talking about chromosomes, you can in fact have XX chromosomes, female reproductive organs, and male-typical testosterone levels, as in this case report of an elite youth soccer player. The idea that men and women form two distinct (rather than overlapping) categories for purposes of sports is nothing but a polite fiction. And finally, we have the funny situation that trans women are currently generally subject to *stricter* regulations than cis women with hyperandrogenism. The whole situation is an inglorious mess simply because the way we structure sex categories and the way physiological differences in men and women develop on average are strongly correlated, but are still different, and that matters especially in elite sports when we deal with people who operate outside normal human biological norms. This is and will remain a difficult problem for the foreseeable future, regardless of what you do about trans athletes, because even cis athletes do not neatly fit in two separate boxes. ^1 And if you think World Athletics has a problem, FIFA is much worse. FIFA rules do not even say how they define men and women, just that only men can participate in men's competitions and only women can participate in women's competition. The decision is left to an expert panel, but the regulations are vague enough to support pretty much any decision that the panel wants to arrive at for whatever reasons (including political ones). But FIFA is also an exceedingly corrupt organization, so it's perhaps not surprising that they don't like justiciable criteria.","human_ref_B":"I think segregating athletes to some degree by sex is very reasonable. The thing you're not getting, however, is that sex is also mutable and HRT to a large degree changes your sex. And most importantly, it changes the parts of your sex that are most applicable to sports, such as hemoglobin, hematocrit, and RBC levels, muscle mass and strength, metabolism, weight distribution, and more. That is, trans women are women by gender and most trans women are also women by sex, particularly in the parts of sex that matter most to sports. There are multiple components that constitute human sex, such as the dominant sex hormone, hormone receptors, genitals, pheromones, the brain, secondary sex characteristics (e.x. breasts, body and facial hair), karyotype, specific genes (e.x. SRY, SOX9, FOXL2, and a ton of others that can combine in weird ways), gene expression, gonads, gametes, and more. Some of these cannot (currently) be changed, but most of them can (through hormones, surgery, etc.), and the ones that matter most to sports can change. Note that of these constituents of sex, karyotype is probably the least important. It matters only because it carries the SRY gene (not always) and ceases to matter a few weeks into gestation after it triggers other genetic signaling pathways. These genetic signaling pathways and the expression of certain genes is not static over your life before and after gestation and puberty and can change. For example, FOXL2 and DMRT1 gene expression are necessary to maintain ovarian and testis cell fate in adulthood, respectively, and they both inhibit the other. All the genes are there, however, and their relative expression is entirely mutable.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2508.0,"score_ratio":3.1428571429} {"post_id":"uid5xp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: It is reasonable to segregate athletes by sex rather than gender There is something I do not understand about the debate about transgender people in sports. I believe that most transgender people and allies agree that _sex_ and _gender_ are distinct things. As I understand it, _sex_ refers to biological differences related to reproduction (e.g. pregnancy, lactation) and other physiological differences linked to it (e.g. size), whereas _gender_ refers to a set of social norms and expectations that are _associated with sex but not inextricably tied to it_. By default, cisgender people identify as the gender that \"matches\" their sex, whereas most transgender people identify as the gender that \"mismatches\" their sex. I seem to recall having heard one trans person say that the terms _male\/female_ should be used to refer to _sex_ and that the terms _man\/woman_ should be used to refer to _gender_. I don't know how widely accepted this terminological distinction is. A number of transgender people want to compete in sports alongside athletes of the same gender. But it seems to me that the segregation of athletes has little to do with social norms and everything to do with physiology. In other words, athletes are segregated not by _gender_ but by _sex_. Most transwomen are women by gender but male by sex. If we view the segregation of athletes as one of sex, it ought to be reasonable that transwomen compete alongside cis men. (Transmen who have transitioned medically may present a special problem. I do not know of any good solution to that.) It is possible that I misunderstand something regarding what sex and gender is supposed to be. If you think so, CMV.","c_root_id_A":"i7c6u80","c_root_id_B":"i7bpz3f","created_at_utc_A":1651696179,"created_at_utc_B":1651689601,"score_A":14,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I think segregating athletes to some degree by sex is very reasonable. The thing you're not getting, however, is that sex is also mutable and HRT to a large degree changes your sex. And most importantly, it changes the parts of your sex that are most applicable to sports, such as hemoglobin, hematocrit, and RBC levels, muscle mass and strength, metabolism, weight distribution, and more. That is, trans women are women by gender and most trans women are also women by sex, particularly in the parts of sex that matter most to sports. There are multiple components that constitute human sex, such as the dominant sex hormone, hormone receptors, genitals, pheromones, the brain, secondary sex characteristics (e.x. breasts, body and facial hair), karyotype, specific genes (e.x. SRY, SOX9, FOXL2, and a ton of others that can combine in weird ways), gene expression, gonads, gametes, and more. Some of these cannot (currently) be changed, but most of them can (through hormones, surgery, etc.), and the ones that matter most to sports can change. Note that of these constituents of sex, karyotype is probably the least important. It matters only because it carries the SRY gene (not always) and ceases to matter a few weeks into gestation after it triggers other genetic signaling pathways. These genetic signaling pathways and the expression of certain genes is not static over your life before and after gestation and puberty and can change. For example, FOXL2 and DMRT1 gene expression are necessary to maintain ovarian and testis cell fate in adulthood, respectively, and they both inhibit the other. All the genes are there, however, and their relative expression is entirely mutable.","human_ref_B":"I think it would be worth clarifying what exactly you mean by segregating athletes by sex. How should we segregate them? By chromosomes? By genitals? Hormone levels? Gamete production? Gonads?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6578.0,"score_ratio":1.0769230769} {"post_id":"uid5xp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: It is reasonable to segregate athletes by sex rather than gender There is something I do not understand about the debate about transgender people in sports. I believe that most transgender people and allies agree that _sex_ and _gender_ are distinct things. As I understand it, _sex_ refers to biological differences related to reproduction (e.g. pregnancy, lactation) and other physiological differences linked to it (e.g. size), whereas _gender_ refers to a set of social norms and expectations that are _associated with sex but not inextricably tied to it_. By default, cisgender people identify as the gender that \"matches\" their sex, whereas most transgender people identify as the gender that \"mismatches\" their sex. I seem to recall having heard one trans person say that the terms _male\/female_ should be used to refer to _sex_ and that the terms _man\/woman_ should be used to refer to _gender_. I don't know how widely accepted this terminological distinction is. A number of transgender people want to compete in sports alongside athletes of the same gender. But it seems to me that the segregation of athletes has little to do with social norms and everything to do with physiology. In other words, athletes are segregated not by _gender_ but by _sex_. Most transwomen are women by gender but male by sex. If we view the segregation of athletes as one of sex, it ought to be reasonable that transwomen compete alongside cis men. (Transmen who have transitioned medically may present a special problem. I do not know of any good solution to that.) It is possible that I misunderstand something regarding what sex and gender is supposed to be. If you think so, CMV.","c_root_id_A":"i7eh41s","c_root_id_B":"i7ejt39","created_at_utc_A":1651738520,"created_at_utc_B":1651740967,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"There will always be some athletes that are better than other. Sometimes it's about biological sex, sometimes it's genetic advantages, sometimes it's about steroids, sometimes it's about technology, sometimes it's about economy (ie having the resources to dedicate more time to training), sometimes it's location (having, say, a ski jump in your city makes it easier to train often than if you, say, live in Tunisia). We can't have categories for every single possible advantage. Also, sports would be pretty boring if we have a completely level playfield where everyone is perfectly equal, we could just replace it with a die.","human_ref_B":"There are plenty of women, with womanly body types, that still have penises. There are also a lot of incredibly bulky men with vaginas. Yes, there are biological differences, but if someone is on gender affirming treatment, these differences become minuscule (especially in fine tuned athletes bodies). Also, there are biological differences between Chinese athletes and African athletes, but that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s okay to segregate based on ethnicity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2447.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io82u2b","c_root_id_B":"io81kfw","created_at_utc_A":1663048381,"created_at_utc_B":1663047498,"score_A":707,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":"> However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery Society does the opposite. Basically any trans person will tell you that at every step of the way, society pressures you not to do it. From arguing that its unnatural to horrendous waiting periods to mandatory shennanigans to really \"make sure\" that this is what you want. At literally no point are people encouraged to any degree that it would outweigh the pressure in the other direction. This is simply a falsehood. > From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Don't you think that people would just do that if that would be enough? Do you think people just choose the way harder method if the easier one would suffice? If that is your view, your view doesn't reflect how people actually feel, which makes how you view it meaningless for anyone that isn't you. > Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? Labels are already in place and in no way is it narrowing down to expand the vocabulary in which people can express themselves. Again, just a wrong premise. If you differentiate between different kinds of cars and call them vans, sport cars, trucks etc. you're not narrowing down defintions, you're just giving people the vocabulary to more accurately describe things. Same goes for gender and the associated labels. > Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective. A fad that goes back hundreds if not thousands of years and always seems to only be a topic when people are adamant at supressing it.","human_ref_B":"Do you think there was a dangerous trend of left handed individuals when people stopped trying to beat the devil out of their children? Also, there are trans tomboys and trans femboys. It's clearly not just as simple as 'dressing and acting the way you like' if people feel the need to socially and medically transition while not changing social roles all that much.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":883.0,"score_ratio":8.2209302326} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io80qqx","c_root_id_B":"io82u2b","created_at_utc_A":1663046935,"created_at_utc_B":1663048381,"score_A":40,"score_B":707,"human_ref_A":"Do you care about what the best treatments for alleviating dysphoria and reducing suicidality is?","human_ref_B":"> However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery Society does the opposite. Basically any trans person will tell you that at every step of the way, society pressures you not to do it. From arguing that its unnatural to horrendous waiting periods to mandatory shennanigans to really \"make sure\" that this is what you want. At literally no point are people encouraged to any degree that it would outweigh the pressure in the other direction. This is simply a falsehood. > From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Don't you think that people would just do that if that would be enough? Do you think people just choose the way harder method if the easier one would suffice? If that is your view, your view doesn't reflect how people actually feel, which makes how you view it meaningless for anyone that isn't you. > Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? Labels are already in place and in no way is it narrowing down to expand the vocabulary in which people can express themselves. Again, just a wrong premise. If you differentiate between different kinds of cars and call them vans, sport cars, trucks etc. you're not narrowing down defintions, you're just giving people the vocabulary to more accurately describe things. Same goes for gender and the associated labels. > Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective. A fad that goes back hundreds if not thousands of years and always seems to only be a topic when people are adamant at supressing it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1446.0,"score_ratio":17.675} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io82u2b","c_root_id_B":"io80dey","created_at_utc_A":1663048381,"created_at_utc_B":1663046682,"score_A":707,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"> However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery Society does the opposite. Basically any trans person will tell you that at every step of the way, society pressures you not to do it. From arguing that its unnatural to horrendous waiting periods to mandatory shennanigans to really \"make sure\" that this is what you want. At literally no point are people encouraged to any degree that it would outweigh the pressure in the other direction. This is simply a falsehood. > From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Don't you think that people would just do that if that would be enough? Do you think people just choose the way harder method if the easier one would suffice? If that is your view, your view doesn't reflect how people actually feel, which makes how you view it meaningless for anyone that isn't you. > Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? Labels are already in place and in no way is it narrowing down to expand the vocabulary in which people can express themselves. Again, just a wrong premise. If you differentiate between different kinds of cars and call them vans, sport cars, trucks etc. you're not narrowing down defintions, you're just giving people the vocabulary to more accurately describe things. Same goes for gender and the associated labels. > Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective. A fad that goes back hundreds if not thousands of years and always seems to only be a topic when people are adamant at supressing it.","human_ref_B":"Where does it say in my genes (or sex chromosomes) that pink is for girls and blue is for boys? Or that boys have short hair and girls wear skirts. Those are traditional **gender** roles.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1699.0,"score_ratio":32.1363636364} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io813qp","c_root_id_B":"io82u2b","created_at_utc_A":1663047183,"created_at_utc_B":1663048381,"score_A":11,"score_B":707,"human_ref_A":"I understand your viewpoint and I both agree and disagree with you. Only thing I would emphasize is that it's not a trend, but a major psychological aspect that can only be only defined by a transgender person. That being said, any form of information that feels forced in your face always makes things go the opposite way than intended. In this case, just more division","human_ref_B":"> However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery Society does the opposite. Basically any trans person will tell you that at every step of the way, society pressures you not to do it. From arguing that its unnatural to horrendous waiting periods to mandatory shennanigans to really \"make sure\" that this is what you want. At literally no point are people encouraged to any degree that it would outweigh the pressure in the other direction. This is simply a falsehood. > From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Don't you think that people would just do that if that would be enough? Do you think people just choose the way harder method if the easier one would suffice? If that is your view, your view doesn't reflect how people actually feel, which makes how you view it meaningless for anyone that isn't you. > Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? Labels are already in place and in no way is it narrowing down to expand the vocabulary in which people can express themselves. Again, just a wrong premise. If you differentiate between different kinds of cars and call them vans, sport cars, trucks etc. you're not narrowing down defintions, you're just giving people the vocabulary to more accurately describe things. Same goes for gender and the associated labels. > Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective. A fad that goes back hundreds if not thousands of years and always seems to only be a topic when people are adamant at supressing it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1198.0,"score_ratio":64.2727272727} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io81kfw","c_root_id_B":"io82xvw","created_at_utc_A":1663047498,"created_at_utc_B":1663048457,"score_A":86,"score_B":161,"human_ref_A":"Do you think there was a dangerous trend of left handed individuals when people stopped trying to beat the devil out of their children? Also, there are trans tomboys and trans femboys. It's clearly not just as simple as 'dressing and acting the way you like' if people feel the need to socially and medically transition while not changing social roles all that much.","human_ref_B":"Essentially, your risk assessment is skewed. Dysmorphia kills, in droves. Gender affirming care is known to be an effective intervention preventing this. These are solid, observed, scientific facts. There's no arguing them any more than any other plain observation. See the link below for collections of resources backing my assertions above: https:\/\/whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu\/topics\/lgbt-equality\/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people\/ Barring evidence of similar quality to the contrary, that's sorta that. Edit: formatting Edit 2: words hard Edit 3: dysphoria is the right word, not dysmorphia. I say again, words hard, and offer my apologies for any confusion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":959.0,"score_ratio":1.8720930233} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io80qqx","c_root_id_B":"io82xvw","created_at_utc_A":1663046935,"created_at_utc_B":1663048457,"score_A":40,"score_B":161,"human_ref_A":"Do you care about what the best treatments for alleviating dysphoria and reducing suicidality is?","human_ref_B":"Essentially, your risk assessment is skewed. Dysmorphia kills, in droves. Gender affirming care is known to be an effective intervention preventing this. These are solid, observed, scientific facts. There's no arguing them any more than any other plain observation. See the link below for collections of resources backing my assertions above: https:\/\/whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu\/topics\/lgbt-equality\/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people\/ Barring evidence of similar quality to the contrary, that's sorta that. Edit: formatting Edit 2: words hard Edit 3: dysphoria is the right word, not dysmorphia. I say again, words hard, and offer my apologies for any confusion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1522.0,"score_ratio":4.025} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io80dey","c_root_id_B":"io82xvw","created_at_utc_A":1663046682,"created_at_utc_B":1663048457,"score_A":22,"score_B":161,"human_ref_A":"Where does it say in my genes (or sex chromosomes) that pink is for girls and blue is for boys? Or that boys have short hair and girls wear skirts. Those are traditional **gender** roles.","human_ref_B":"Essentially, your risk assessment is skewed. Dysmorphia kills, in droves. Gender affirming care is known to be an effective intervention preventing this. These are solid, observed, scientific facts. There's no arguing them any more than any other plain observation. See the link below for collections of resources backing my assertions above: https:\/\/whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu\/topics\/lgbt-equality\/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people\/ Barring evidence of similar quality to the contrary, that's sorta that. Edit: formatting Edit 2: words hard Edit 3: dysphoria is the right word, not dysmorphia. I say again, words hard, and offer my apologies for any confusion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1775.0,"score_ratio":7.3181818182} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io82xvw","c_root_id_B":"io813qp","created_at_utc_A":1663048457,"created_at_utc_B":1663047183,"score_A":161,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Essentially, your risk assessment is skewed. Dysmorphia kills, in droves. Gender affirming care is known to be an effective intervention preventing this. These are solid, observed, scientific facts. There's no arguing them any more than any other plain observation. See the link below for collections of resources backing my assertions above: https:\/\/whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu\/topics\/lgbt-equality\/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people\/ Barring evidence of similar quality to the contrary, that's sorta that. Edit: formatting Edit 2: words hard Edit 3: dysphoria is the right word, not dysmorphia. I say again, words hard, and offer my apologies for any confusion.","human_ref_B":"I understand your viewpoint and I both agree and disagree with you. Only thing I would emphasize is that it's not a trend, but a major psychological aspect that can only be only defined by a transgender person. That being said, any form of information that feels forced in your face always makes things go the opposite way than intended. In this case, just more division","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1274.0,"score_ratio":14.6363636364} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io81kfw","c_root_id_B":"io80qqx","created_at_utc_A":1663047498,"created_at_utc_B":1663046935,"score_A":86,"score_B":40,"human_ref_A":"Do you think there was a dangerous trend of left handed individuals when people stopped trying to beat the devil out of their children? Also, there are trans tomboys and trans femboys. It's clearly not just as simple as 'dressing and acting the way you like' if people feel the need to socially and medically transition while not changing social roles all that much.","human_ref_B":"Do you care about what the best treatments for alleviating dysphoria and reducing suicidality is?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":563.0,"score_ratio":2.15} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io80dey","c_root_id_B":"io81kfw","created_at_utc_A":1663046682,"created_at_utc_B":1663047498,"score_A":22,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":"Where does it say in my genes (or sex chromosomes) that pink is for girls and blue is for boys? Or that boys have short hair and girls wear skirts. Those are traditional **gender** roles.","human_ref_B":"Do you think there was a dangerous trend of left handed individuals when people stopped trying to beat the devil out of their children? Also, there are trans tomboys and trans femboys. It's clearly not just as simple as 'dressing and acting the way you like' if people feel the need to socially and medically transition while not changing social roles all that much.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":816.0,"score_ratio":3.9090909091} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io81kfw","c_root_id_B":"io813qp","created_at_utc_A":1663047498,"created_at_utc_B":1663047183,"score_A":86,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Do you think there was a dangerous trend of left handed individuals when people stopped trying to beat the devil out of their children? Also, there are trans tomboys and trans femboys. It's clearly not just as simple as 'dressing and acting the way you like' if people feel the need to socially and medically transition while not changing social roles all that much.","human_ref_B":"I understand your viewpoint and I both agree and disagree with you. Only thing I would emphasize is that it's not a trend, but a major psychological aspect that can only be only defined by a transgender person. That being said, any form of information that feels forced in your face always makes things go the opposite way than intended. In this case, just more division","labels":1,"seconds_difference":315.0,"score_ratio":7.8181818182} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io80qqx","c_root_id_B":"io88znv","created_at_utc_A":1663046935,"created_at_utc_B":1663053058,"score_A":40,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"Do you care about what the best treatments for alleviating dysphoria and reducing suicidality is?","human_ref_B":"I\u2019ve read through all your comments. The thing I\u2019m confused about is what are you are honestly worried about here? Can you state it simply? I\u2019m all for people being whoever they want to be. Kinda seems like you are too, but then sometimes it seems like you want something more rigid. So idk. Help me out. What is the root of all this?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6123.0,"score_ratio":1.35} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io88znv","c_root_id_B":"io80dey","created_at_utc_A":1663053058,"created_at_utc_B":1663046682,"score_A":54,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019ve read through all your comments. The thing I\u2019m confused about is what are you are honestly worried about here? Can you state it simply? I\u2019m all for people being whoever they want to be. Kinda seems like you are too, but then sometimes it seems like you want something more rigid. So idk. Help me out. What is the root of all this?","human_ref_B":"Where does it say in my genes (or sex chromosomes) that pink is for girls and blue is for boys? Or that boys have short hair and girls wear skirts. Those are traditional **gender** roles.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6376.0,"score_ratio":2.4545454545} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io813qp","c_root_id_B":"io88znv","created_at_utc_A":1663047183,"created_at_utc_B":1663053058,"score_A":11,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"I understand your viewpoint and I both agree and disagree with you. Only thing I would emphasize is that it's not a trend, but a major psychological aspect that can only be only defined by a transgender person. That being said, any form of information that feels forced in your face always makes things go the opposite way than intended. In this case, just more division","human_ref_B":"I\u2019ve read through all your comments. The thing I\u2019m confused about is what are you are honestly worried about here? Can you state it simply? I\u2019m all for people being whoever they want to be. Kinda seems like you are too, but then sometimes it seems like you want something more rigid. So idk. Help me out. What is the root of all this?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5875.0,"score_ratio":4.9090909091} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io80qqx","c_root_id_B":"io80dey","created_at_utc_A":1663046935,"created_at_utc_B":1663046682,"score_A":40,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Do you care about what the best treatments for alleviating dysphoria and reducing suicidality is?","human_ref_B":"Where does it say in my genes (or sex chromosomes) that pink is for girls and blue is for boys? Or that boys have short hair and girls wear skirts. Those are traditional **gender** roles.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":253.0,"score_ratio":1.8181818182} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io8aa2i","c_root_id_B":"io80dey","created_at_utc_A":1663054125,"created_at_utc_B":1663046682,"score_A":27,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Transgender people don't just dislike pink if they're girls and hate trucks if they're boys. They literally feel disgusted by their own bodies e.g. feeling sickened by having a penis, hating the sensation of having breasts, for example. It's not just about gender stereotypes, there's much more to it than that.","human_ref_B":"Where does it say in my genes (or sex chromosomes) that pink is for girls and blue is for boys? Or that boys have short hair and girls wear skirts. Those are traditional **gender** roles.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7443.0,"score_ratio":1.2272727273} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io813qp","c_root_id_B":"io8aa2i","created_at_utc_A":1663047183,"created_at_utc_B":1663054125,"score_A":11,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"I understand your viewpoint and I both agree and disagree with you. Only thing I would emphasize is that it's not a trend, but a major psychological aspect that can only be only defined by a transgender person. That being said, any form of information that feels forced in your face always makes things go the opposite way than intended. In this case, just more division","human_ref_B":"Transgender people don't just dislike pink if they're girls and hate trucks if they're boys. They literally feel disgusted by their own bodies e.g. feeling sickened by having a penis, hating the sensation of having breasts, for example. It's not just about gender stereotypes, there's much more to it than that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6942.0,"score_ratio":2.4545454545} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io813qp","c_root_id_B":"io8plcx","created_at_utc_A":1663047183,"created_at_utc_B":1663066701,"score_A":11,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I understand your viewpoint and I both agree and disagree with you. Only thing I would emphasize is that it's not a trend, but a major psychological aspect that can only be only defined by a transgender person. That being said, any form of information that feels forced in your face always makes things go the opposite way than intended. In this case, just more division","human_ref_B":"Why do people want to blame gender roles on trans people? Just because they cause you to think about it more critically? Straight\/cis people are out there \"reinforcing gender roles\" every fucking day. And I don't know about you but I see a lot more straight\/cis people say to day than trans. Trans people dress they way they do because dress is one of the ways we express gender in our culture, trans people didn't invent that it's the way we have communicated for generations. It's so ubiquitous that you can take a yellow dot and put a bow on the top of it and now everyone knows it's a lady yellow dot (ms. Pacman)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19518.0,"score_ratio":1.9090909091} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io9vgin","c_root_id_B":"io8qv76","created_at_utc_A":1663085184,"created_at_utc_B":1663067541,"score_A":16,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Hello! Trans person (female to male) here. I was discouraged from medically transitioning by my family until I was legally an adult. A lot of trans people experience a similar thing unless their lack of transitioning becomes life threatening. It can become life threatening because for some, we have gender dysphoria, which is this feeling of being in the wrong body. How I like to describe it is imagine the dissonance of seeing a male actor\u2019s face on a bikini model\u2019s body or a naked Barbie doll. That\u2019s how I can feel when I look in the mirror. However, transitioning has made me feel confident breaking gender roles. You see, because of society, I\u2019d often have to avoid dresses because I didn\u2019t have hairier legs, wider shoulders, a smaller chest, a deeper voice, or facial hair. I\u2019d just look like a girl in a dress. Now, I feel like a man in a dress. Being a man in a dress brings me confidence, and knowing that I don\u2019t fit into small dresses like I used to brings me euphoria. Medically transitioning so far has made my body feel like home. The changes I\u2019ve experienced that have made my body more like someone who was born male has given me the confidence to break gender roles. Me feeling like a man doesn\u2019t mean that I don\u2019t wear makeup or dresses or refuse to have feminine aspects of my personality or behavior. For me, it simply means that I go by he\/him pronouns and feel happier with a body that is more similar to the male sex. Maybe it means something to someone else, but that\u2019s what it means to me. I\u2019m happy to answer any questions, and I hope this brings some understanding. I know it can be confusing, and that\u2019s okay. I don\u2019t expect people who aren\u2019t trans to easily understand it.","human_ref_B":">From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Quite simply, your point of view is wrong. That isn't gender identity, that is gender presentation. I'm a trans woman. I don't care in the slightest about clothes or makeup. Femininity means nothing to me. But I've had every transition surgery available, and as a result, I'm more comfortable in my skin than I've ever been. I don't have my ears pierced, I don't wear makeup, and I spend most of my time in jeans and a tshirt. Still very much trans","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17643.0,"score_ratio":1.2307692308} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io813qp","c_root_id_B":"io9vgin","created_at_utc_A":1663047183,"created_at_utc_B":1663085184,"score_A":11,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I understand your viewpoint and I both agree and disagree with you. Only thing I would emphasize is that it's not a trend, but a major psychological aspect that can only be only defined by a transgender person. That being said, any form of information that feels forced in your face always makes things go the opposite way than intended. In this case, just more division","human_ref_B":"Hello! Trans person (female to male) here. I was discouraged from medically transitioning by my family until I was legally an adult. A lot of trans people experience a similar thing unless their lack of transitioning becomes life threatening. It can become life threatening because for some, we have gender dysphoria, which is this feeling of being in the wrong body. How I like to describe it is imagine the dissonance of seeing a male actor\u2019s face on a bikini model\u2019s body or a naked Barbie doll. That\u2019s how I can feel when I look in the mirror. However, transitioning has made me feel confident breaking gender roles. You see, because of society, I\u2019d often have to avoid dresses because I didn\u2019t have hairier legs, wider shoulders, a smaller chest, a deeper voice, or facial hair. I\u2019d just look like a girl in a dress. Now, I feel like a man in a dress. Being a man in a dress brings me confidence, and knowing that I don\u2019t fit into small dresses like I used to brings me euphoria. Medically transitioning so far has made my body feel like home. The changes I\u2019ve experienced that have made my body more like someone who was born male has given me the confidence to break gender roles. Me feeling like a man doesn\u2019t mean that I don\u2019t wear makeup or dresses or refuse to have feminine aspects of my personality or behavior. For me, it simply means that I go by he\/him pronouns and feel happier with a body that is more similar to the male sex. Maybe it means something to someone else, but that\u2019s what it means to me. I\u2019m happy to answer any questions, and I hope this brings some understanding. I know it can be confusing, and that\u2019s okay. I don\u2019t expect people who aren\u2019t trans to easily understand it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38001.0,"score_ratio":1.4545454545} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io95e7d","c_root_id_B":"io9vgin","created_at_utc_A":1663075095,"created_at_utc_B":1663085184,"score_A":12,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Society *ENCOURAGES* them? Do we live in different universes? The suicide rate for LGBT+ people is through the roof because they are oppressed and ridiculed. What the hell?","human_ref_B":"Hello! Trans person (female to male) here. I was discouraged from medically transitioning by my family until I was legally an adult. A lot of trans people experience a similar thing unless their lack of transitioning becomes life threatening. It can become life threatening because for some, we have gender dysphoria, which is this feeling of being in the wrong body. How I like to describe it is imagine the dissonance of seeing a male actor\u2019s face on a bikini model\u2019s body or a naked Barbie doll. That\u2019s how I can feel when I look in the mirror. However, transitioning has made me feel confident breaking gender roles. You see, because of society, I\u2019d often have to avoid dresses because I didn\u2019t have hairier legs, wider shoulders, a smaller chest, a deeper voice, or facial hair. I\u2019d just look like a girl in a dress. Now, I feel like a man in a dress. Being a man in a dress brings me confidence, and knowing that I don\u2019t fit into small dresses like I used to brings me euphoria. Medically transitioning so far has made my body feel like home. The changes I\u2019ve experienced that have made my body more like someone who was born male has given me the confidence to break gender roles. Me feeling like a man doesn\u2019t mean that I don\u2019t wear makeup or dresses or refuse to have feminine aspects of my personality or behavior. For me, it simply means that I go by he\/him pronouns and feel happier with a body that is more similar to the male sex. Maybe it means something to someone else, but that\u2019s what it means to me. I\u2019m happy to answer any questions, and I hope this brings some understanding. I know it can be confusing, and that\u2019s okay. I don\u2019t expect people who aren\u2019t trans to easily understand it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10089.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"ioageew","c_root_id_B":"io813qp","created_at_utc_A":1663093877,"created_at_utc_B":1663047183,"score_A":13,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"There\u2019s already many comments stating most ideas but I want to clarify some points. 1) it\u2019s not a \u201ctrend\u201d. People, young and old, have committed suicide over dysphoria, bullying or are straight up murdered. Who would WANT to risk themselves on a day to day bases to hate and possible murder on a \u201ctrend\u201d. 2) Transitioning to a different sex does not limit that persons gender expression. Nor does being born cis. I\u2019m a cisgender woman yet I still go by She\/they because I feel more comfortable. Same reason why I dress into a default of pants and t shirts, I\u2019m comfortable. Some people need to transition to the opposite sex in order to feel comfortable. Even if those changes are small like just letting their hair grow or cutting it. And that brings me to 3) no one is being forced to \u201cmutilate\u201d their body. It\u2019s an option most pick but I have indeed met NB, Fem and Masc trans peeps not go through a complete change and still be happy. That option isn\u2019t always for everyone tho. Some people don\u2019t feel like their physical avatar fits them so they change it. Point is, this isn\u2019t a fad, it\u2019s not a culture trend, we see more of it now because the world is a bit mor accepting than before of the unknown. At the end of the day we all end up the same way so why not let people be happy the way they want to. As long as it\u2019s not hurting anyone else I don\u2019t see an issue.","human_ref_B":"I understand your viewpoint and I both agree and disagree with you. Only thing I would emphasize is that it's not a trend, but a major psychological aspect that can only be only defined by a transgender person. That being said, any form of information that feels forced in your face always makes things go the opposite way than intended. In this case, just more division","labels":1,"seconds_difference":46694.0,"score_ratio":1.1818181818} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io95e7d","c_root_id_B":"ioageew","created_at_utc_A":1663075095,"created_at_utc_B":1663093877,"score_A":12,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Society *ENCOURAGES* them? Do we live in different universes? The suicide rate for LGBT+ people is through the roof because they are oppressed and ridiculed. What the hell?","human_ref_B":"There\u2019s already many comments stating most ideas but I want to clarify some points. 1) it\u2019s not a \u201ctrend\u201d. People, young and old, have committed suicide over dysphoria, bullying or are straight up murdered. Who would WANT to risk themselves on a day to day bases to hate and possible murder on a \u201ctrend\u201d. 2) Transitioning to a different sex does not limit that persons gender expression. Nor does being born cis. I\u2019m a cisgender woman yet I still go by She\/they because I feel more comfortable. Same reason why I dress into a default of pants and t shirts, I\u2019m comfortable. Some people need to transition to the opposite sex in order to feel comfortable. Even if those changes are small like just letting their hair grow or cutting it. And that brings me to 3) no one is being forced to \u201cmutilate\u201d their body. It\u2019s an option most pick but I have indeed met NB, Fem and Masc trans peeps not go through a complete change and still be happy. That option isn\u2019t always for everyone tho. Some people don\u2019t feel like their physical avatar fits them so they change it. Point is, this isn\u2019t a fad, it\u2019s not a culture trend, we see more of it now because the world is a bit mor accepting than before of the unknown. At the end of the day we all end up the same way so why not let people be happy the way they want to. As long as it\u2019s not hurting anyone else I don\u2019t see an issue.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18782.0,"score_ratio":1.0833333333} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io813qp","c_root_id_B":"io8qv76","created_at_utc_A":1663047183,"created_at_utc_B":1663067541,"score_A":11,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I understand your viewpoint and I both agree and disagree with you. Only thing I would emphasize is that it's not a trend, but a major psychological aspect that can only be only defined by a transgender person. That being said, any form of information that feels forced in your face always makes things go the opposite way than intended. In this case, just more division","human_ref_B":">From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Quite simply, your point of view is wrong. That isn't gender identity, that is gender presentation. I'm a trans woman. I don't care in the slightest about clothes or makeup. Femininity means nothing to me. But I've had every transition surgery available, and as a result, I'm more comfortable in my skin than I've ever been. I don't have my ears pierced, I don't wear makeup, and I spend most of my time in jeans and a tshirt. Still very much trans","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20358.0,"score_ratio":1.1818181818} {"post_id":"xcywd7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"cmv: The current trend of transgender youth is a dangerous trend that only reinforces traditional gender roles. Let me start by saying that I have never gone out of my way to be unkind to those who do not identify with their birth sex and that I would refer to the individual as they would like within reason. However, this doesn\u2019t mean that I believe that society should encourage those who \u201cfeel\u201d like the other sex to transition hormonally or through surgery. From my point of view, gender seems to be associated with certain expressions of the appearance, such as clothes, makeup, and demeanor. Therefore people who don\u2019t \u201cfeel like a man or a woman\u201d need to redefine themselves in order to be able to act and dress how they like. But why is it not possible to simply dress and act the way you like ? Why does one need to create new labels that only narrow our current definitions of \u201cman\u201d and \u201cwoman\u201d by implicitly saying that my personality cannot exist in side of a man\u2019s body. Furthermore, what does it even mean to feel like a woman? What does it mean to feel like a man ? These questions seem impossible to answer, which only makes the prospect of mutilation of their natural genitalia even more disturbing. Shouldn\u2019t the proper way of achieving your desired identity be to open the boundaries of current ideas of how each sex expresses themselves? Finally, I will conclude by saying that it seems as though those who identify with the Transgender community are part of a cultural fad, that binds those who do not fit in to a community that will accept and support them no matter what, even if it means completely reestablishing social systems. I believe that this cultural fixation will negatively affect teens and young adults long term health. Interested in hearing a different perspective.","c_root_id_A":"io813qp","c_root_id_B":"io95e7d","created_at_utc_A":1663047183,"created_at_utc_B":1663075095,"score_A":11,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I understand your viewpoint and I both agree and disagree with you. Only thing I would emphasize is that it's not a trend, but a major psychological aspect that can only be only defined by a transgender person. That being said, any form of information that feels forced in your face always makes things go the opposite way than intended. In this case, just more division","human_ref_B":"Society *ENCOURAGES* them? Do we live in different universes? The suicide rate for LGBT+ people is through the roof because they are oppressed and ridiculed. What the hell?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27912.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy0nsih","c_root_id_B":"iy0nbol","created_at_utc_A":1669583993,"created_at_utc_B":1669583807,"score_A":1217,"score_B":94,"human_ref_A":"The issue isn't the portion size, it's the pricing. Restaurants essentially fold a discount for kids meals into their menu pricing as an incentive to get parents to come with their kids. Part of that discount is made possible through smaller portion sizes and simpler ingredients, but they've likely also built in a lower profit margin and are making it back up through higher volume. As you are an adult, you ordering only from the children's menu breaks their pricing model. While they could make an exception only for you, allowing this as a regular policy would put their business at risk. Your CMV is more like \"I, as an adult, should be able to use a 20% off coupon meant for children\".","human_ref_B":"The business has decided as a kindness to parents to reduce the price of food on a kids menu. If you\u2019re okay with paying a higher price the same portion, we can agree, but if you\u2019re expecting to pay kids price when the business is under no obligation to serve you, then that\u2019s not right.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":186.0,"score_ratio":12.9468085106} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy0nsih","c_root_id_B":"iy0nql3","created_at_utc_A":1669583993,"created_at_utc_B":1669583971,"score_A":1217,"score_B":69,"human_ref_A":"The issue isn't the portion size, it's the pricing. Restaurants essentially fold a discount for kids meals into their menu pricing as an incentive to get parents to come with their kids. Part of that discount is made possible through smaller portion sizes and simpler ingredients, but they've likely also built in a lower profit margin and are making it back up through higher volume. As you are an adult, you ordering only from the children's menu breaks their pricing model. While they could make an exception only for you, allowing this as a regular policy would put their business at risk. Your CMV is more like \"I, as an adult, should be able to use a 20% off coupon meant for children\".","human_ref_B":">I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself? I think you misunderstand the true purpose. Yes, it is intentionally cheaper... To encourage family dining. They are not simply priced to scale according to portion size. They are priced with an assumption that there will be at least one adult getting a normal priced meal alongside it. The assumed adult meal subsidizes the kids meal. When there is not an adult meal alongside it, it defeats the purpose of the pricing structure and may even be a loss for the restaurant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22.0,"score_ratio":17.6376811594} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy1l51e","c_root_id_B":"iy0qhnc","created_at_utc_A":1669598622,"created_at_utc_B":1669585080,"score_A":17,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I've literally never been to a restaurant that restricted who could order what outside of alcohol.","human_ref_B":"The decreased cost isn't just proportional to the amount of food. The cost is set artificially low in order to subsidize children getting to eat, and to draw in business from parents who order of the adult menu themselves. If all costs for all food on the menu were kept artificially low like that, the restaurant couldn't operate. That's why those discounts are only available to kids, not everyone. It's exactly like if a hardware store had a promotional deal of 'buy one hammer, get a screwdriver for 50% off,' and you said 'I only want this screwdriver but I should get it for 50% off.' That promotional deal is only available to certain customers (here, those who bought a hammer; there, those who are children). That's a totally fine thing for the business to do, and to be allowed to do.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13542.0,"score_ratio":1.4166666667} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy1l51e","c_root_id_B":"iy0vmyz","created_at_utc_A":1669598622,"created_at_utc_B":1669587199,"score_A":17,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I've literally never been to a restaurant that restricted who could order what outside of alcohol.","human_ref_B":"Order a regular meal and take leftovers for later.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11423.0,"score_ratio":1.8888888889} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy1l51e","c_root_id_B":"iy0vqa4","created_at_utc_A":1669598622,"created_at_utc_B":1669587238,"score_A":17,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I've literally never been to a restaurant that restricted who could order what outside of alcohol.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019re wrong and if the issue was ever forced on restaurants , kids menus would just go away. Kids meals are priced not just on the portion, but on the understanding that when a kids meal gets ordered , an adult meal will typically be ordered by someone else at the table The reason you don\u2019t see restaurants with a \u201csmall portion for less\u201d menu is it isn\u2019t profitable by itself.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11384.0,"score_ratio":4.25} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy2nj4f","c_root_id_B":"iy0vmyz","created_at_utc_A":1669620566,"created_at_utc_B":1669587199,"score_A":12,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I think all the people stating what the business intends are full of shit, so what if it breaks their pricing model? If it's available for sale I should be able to buy, and in most cases the prices are either proportional or worse because it's cute and colorful to distract the kids, that's not the point tho, who's to say I'm not buying to take home to my kid? Let the person buy whatevers on the menu","human_ref_B":"Order a regular meal and take leftovers for later.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33367.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy2ecgo","c_root_id_B":"iy2nj4f","created_at_utc_A":1669613776,"created_at_utc_B":1669620566,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I know this is called change my view, but you should take my dad's go to approach in these kind of situations, which was to say something like, \"well, that's okay, I'm the one paying, so do you want my money or not?\"","human_ref_B":"I think all the people stating what the business intends are full of shit, so what if it breaks their pricing model? If it's available for sale I should be able to buy, and in most cases the prices are either proportional or worse because it's cute and colorful to distract the kids, that's not the point tho, who's to say I'm not buying to take home to my kid? Let the person buy whatevers on the menu","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6790.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy2nj4f","c_root_id_B":"iy0vqa4","created_at_utc_A":1669620566,"created_at_utc_B":1669587238,"score_A":12,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think all the people stating what the business intends are full of shit, so what if it breaks their pricing model? If it's available for sale I should be able to buy, and in most cases the prices are either proportional or worse because it's cute and colorful to distract the kids, that's not the point tho, who's to say I'm not buying to take home to my kid? Let the person buy whatevers on the menu","human_ref_B":"You\u2019re wrong and if the issue was ever forced on restaurants , kids menus would just go away. Kids meals are priced not just on the portion, but on the understanding that when a kids meal gets ordered , an adult meal will typically be ordered by someone else at the table The reason you don\u2019t see restaurants with a \u201csmall portion for less\u201d menu is it isn\u2019t profitable by itself.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33328.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy0vqa4","c_root_id_B":"iy3pu6y","created_at_utc_A":1669587238,"created_at_utc_B":1669647507,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re wrong and if the issue was ever forced on restaurants , kids menus would just go away. Kids meals are priced not just on the portion, but on the understanding that when a kids meal gets ordered , an adult meal will typically be ordered by someone else at the table The reason you don\u2019t see restaurants with a \u201csmall portion for less\u201d menu is it isn\u2019t profitable by itself.","human_ref_B":"Amazing the amount of people in this thread who think basic human rights don\u2019t extend to a fucking restaurant menu. All of you people are the problem with todays society. If someone wants to order something the restaurant put on the fucking menu then let them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":60269.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy2sfq9","c_root_id_B":"iy2ecgo","created_at_utc_A":1669624745,"created_at_utc_B":1669613776,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I went to a restaurant once and ordered a kid\u2019s meal, (I was a small 14 year old at the time). The waiter didn\u2019t say anything but brought me a full meal and charged me for something way more expensive. Still makes my blood boil.","human_ref_B":"I know this is called change my view, but you should take my dad's go to approach in these kind of situations, which was to say something like, \"well, that's okay, I'm the one paying, so do you want my money or not?\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10969.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy0vqa4","c_root_id_B":"iy2ecgo","created_at_utc_A":1669587238,"created_at_utc_B":1669613776,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019re wrong and if the issue was ever forced on restaurants , kids menus would just go away. Kids meals are priced not just on the portion, but on the understanding that when a kids meal gets ordered , an adult meal will typically be ordered by someone else at the table The reason you don\u2019t see restaurants with a \u201csmall portion for less\u201d menu is it isn\u2019t profitable by itself.","human_ref_B":"I know this is called change my view, but you should take my dad's go to approach in these kind of situations, which was to say something like, \"well, that's okay, I'm the one paying, so do you want my money or not?\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26538.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"z6cjt8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I as an adult should be allowed to order from the children\u2019s menu if I want to. Look, I\u2019m not always that hungry and I need some food at a restaurant but not a ton. At my local diner for example, the kids meals are basically just smaller versions of the regular meals. When I\u2019m doing pick up, I like to get a children\u2019s Turkey dinner because it\u2019s delicious and it\u2019s just the right amount of food. But when I dine in person, they can see that I\u2019m not a child and won\u2019t serve me the children\u2019s version and I have to get the regular version. I understand that the purpose of a kids menu is so that parents can get their child an appropriate amount of food for a child at a decreased cost, but even if I\u2019m an adult, if I\u2019m just as hungry, shouldn\u2019t I be able to get that for myself?","c_root_id_A":"iy2sfq9","c_root_id_B":"iy0vqa4","created_at_utc_A":1669624745,"created_at_utc_B":1669587238,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I went to a restaurant once and ordered a kid\u2019s meal, (I was a small 14 year old at the time). The waiter didn\u2019t say anything but brought me a full meal and charged me for something way more expensive. Still makes my blood boil.","human_ref_B":"You\u2019re wrong and if the issue was ever forced on restaurants , kids menus would just go away. Kids meals are priced not just on the portion, but on the understanding that when a kids meal gets ordered , an adult meal will typically be ordered by someone else at the table The reason you don\u2019t see restaurants with a \u201csmall portion for less\u201d menu is it isn\u2019t profitable by itself.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37507.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"5nwnd4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee. The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say \"Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump.\" That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dcevkdo","c_root_id_B":"dcfiia4","created_at_utc_A":1484389090,"created_at_utc_B":1484429823,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Although I truly believe Bernie is honest and sincere, his policy ideas could be filed under Pie in the Sky. Everything Obama suggested in 6 years of the presidency was automatically shut down and nothing was achieved. Electing a candidate even more far left would just be a standstill with Congress opposition. Dislike of Hillary abound, I still knew of no independents that could get behind Bernie's wishful thinking.","human_ref_B":"This is something that has bothered me for awhile about the whole Bernie Sanders narrative, which is that Bernie Sanders *was not a democrat*. **I'm totally on board for saying that he probably would have beat Trump in a general election and would have made a better candidate than Hillary Clinton**. However many of the revelations that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton are completely understandable. Bernie Sanders was not and today IS NOT a democrat. Vermont does not require that you register your party affiliation so there is less paperwork to actually refer to and we must instead rely on statements. Bernie announced that he was a Democrat *DURING* the election, he was an independent. He left the party to go *back* to being an independent before it was over. The DNC exists to put **DEMOCRATS** into public office. So if you are a party boss like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who are you going to promote from within? The card carrying democrat of 30+ years and former first lady of a democrat president, or the guy that has refused to join your organization until just last week in the middle of your party's primaries? I'm not saying the system's right, but that *is* the system. We have parties that promote the party. The people that are loyal to the DNC. They backed the person they saw as being more supportive of them. Yeah it cost them the election and put Trump in the whitehouse, but to the DNC leadership a Bernie Sanders whitehouse is still a loss of DNC power. **I think the DNC leadership would rather lose with Hillary than risk their position in Washington under the outside leadership of Bernie.** And to them, I don't think they really thought they were going to lose with Hillary.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":40733.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"5nwnd4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee. The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say \"Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump.\" That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dcevkdo","c_root_id_B":"dcfxllk","created_at_utc_A":1484389090,"created_at_utc_B":1484449453,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Although I truly believe Bernie is honest and sincere, his policy ideas could be filed under Pie in the Sky. Everything Obama suggested in 6 years of the presidency was automatically shut down and nothing was achieved. Electing a candidate even more far left would just be a standstill with Congress opposition. Dislike of Hillary abound, I still knew of no independents that could get behind Bernie's wishful thinking.","human_ref_B":"I'm late on this, but I have a very strong point of view here and wanted to weigh in. Hillary Clinton was very popular as Secretary of State. As she prepared to run for president starting in 2013, she was the subject of near-constant attacks from both the right and the left. Those attacks, as well as the baggage she'd acquired from more than 20 years in the public eye, left her damaged goods. But for the most part, she came prepackaged with that damage. James Comey seems to have legitimately hurt her, but most people had already made their mind up on Hillary one way or another long before the election. Bernie Sanders was virtually unknown prior to declaring his candidacy. He spent his presidential run being attacked by nobody. Hillary ran few negative ads about him; Republicans were afraid to attack him because they thought Hillary would be the nominee and feared alienating his populist supporters, who they hoped to snag in the general election. There was also very little opposition research about Bernie, and very little publicity of anything negative even if it was known. This is a guy who's been on the political scene forever. You think he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet because nobody felt it necessary to dig them up. Bernie is not a saint. He's a human being and a politician. There's dirt there -- somebody just needed to look for it. This is an avowed socialist we're talking about (I'd argue that he's a social democrat, not a democratic socialist, but that's neither here nor there). Is it really too hard to imagine some article he wrote back in the '70s or '80s praising the Soviet Union and attacking America coming to light? What about an old recording of him enthusiastically discussing his frankly obvious atheism and making fun of religious people? How do you think all of that would play with older, working-class voters? Here's a non-political example I always think of: Bernie has one child, Levi, born in 1969. Levi's mother and Bernie were never married; I don't believe they were ever even in that serious a relationship. What percentage of voters do you think know that fact? Two percent? Three percent? You know what percentage of voters would have known that if he'd won the nomination? One hundred percent, that's how many. Now, I don't care whether Bernie was married to the mother of his child. But this is America -- millions and millions of people would care a lot. Even Donald Trump hasn't committed that sin. (He just pays for the abortions.) If Bernie had won the Democratic nomination, playtime would have been over. Trump would have immediately started a barrage of attacks against Bernie, and they would have been the first many people who don't follow politics closely -- exactly the voters Trump relied on to win -- had even heard of him. Unlike with Hillary, Trump had an opportunity to define Bernie. And if there's one thing Donald Trump is good at, it's defining people. And how would Trump have defined Bernie? We don't have to guess. Trump, not exactly the best guy in the world at keeping secrets, couldn't resist leaking the mean nickname he had planned on several occasions: \"Crazy Bernie.\" This is a killer brand. Bernie looks the part and acts the part. When was the last time you heard someone accuse Bernie of being crazy? Never? Well, imagine an alternate 2017 where that's the definitive image people have of him -- as a ranting, raving old man with a tenuous grasp on reality. Remember, the only reason he was never tagged with that is because nobody ever had to tag him with it. Think about it, really think about it -- can you imagine that sticking? I bet you can. And here's the worst part. Throughout the general election, the biggest knock on Trump was not that he was a misogynist, was not that he was a racist, was not that he was a know-nothing. The most effective criticism of Trump was that he was crazy. Whenever he acted crazy or Hillary successfully branded him as crazy, his poll numbers plummeted. The idea that this man could have the nuclear codes scared the hell out of people in a way that the other stuff didn't. But if Trump had managed to brand Bernie as Crazy Bernie, it would have completely neutralized all of that. I think Trump would have wiped the floor with Bernie.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":60363.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"5nwnd4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee. The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say \"Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump.\" That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dcfiia4","c_root_id_B":"dcevk51","created_at_utc_A":1484429823,"created_at_utc_B":1484389064,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This is something that has bothered me for awhile about the whole Bernie Sanders narrative, which is that Bernie Sanders *was not a democrat*. **I'm totally on board for saying that he probably would have beat Trump in a general election and would have made a better candidate than Hillary Clinton**. However many of the revelations that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton are completely understandable. Bernie Sanders was not and today IS NOT a democrat. Vermont does not require that you register your party affiliation so there is less paperwork to actually refer to and we must instead rely on statements. Bernie announced that he was a Democrat *DURING* the election, he was an independent. He left the party to go *back* to being an independent before it was over. The DNC exists to put **DEMOCRATS** into public office. So if you are a party boss like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who are you going to promote from within? The card carrying democrat of 30+ years and former first lady of a democrat president, or the guy that has refused to join your organization until just last week in the middle of your party's primaries? I'm not saying the system's right, but that *is* the system. We have parties that promote the party. The people that are loyal to the DNC. They backed the person they saw as being more supportive of them. Yeah it cost them the election and put Trump in the whitehouse, but to the DNC leadership a Bernie Sanders whitehouse is still a loss of DNC power. **I think the DNC leadership would rather lose with Hillary than risk their position in Washington under the outside leadership of Bernie.** And to them, I don't think they really thought they were going to lose with Hillary.","human_ref_B":"It is a nice fantasy. It means you imagine all those people who fear \"migrants\" do not exist. What would Bernie deliver to them? And the \"media\" constantly watches user numbers. if Clinton would not have sold their outlets but pro-Sanders articles had greater user turnout do you think they would not let Clinton fall and instead pushed Sanders. Simple. people fear too much progress and independent success. Simply fear it. Obviously they fear any kind of socialism. (Some argue that nowhere do state subsidies - in health systems - work and in many places there is utter chaos if free markets are blocked and the state power center does the sharing of wealth. What happns with innovations - why is there no innovation in Russia or China ? People see these things. Why do you think a power broker Central Committee member - who has everything of course - is better (as a person) than a millionaire who amassed his her wealth on the market? No it is not so sure a Socialist Utopia can be sold in America as yet...(But its time will come because it is true it has good sides too for the poor.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":40759.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"5nwnd4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee. The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say \"Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump.\" That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dcf00uu","c_root_id_B":"dcfiia4","created_at_utc_A":1484402490,"created_at_utc_B":1484429823,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Worth considering too is how Trump would have performed running against a man instead of a woman. Trump got hammered a lot for his sexism and this was a big theme because of Clinton's historic nomination. It's likely that women's rights & issues would have been less prominent on the Sanders campaign trail than the Clinton one and Trump would have ran a somewhat better campaign as a result--one that focused more on Republican ideals that differ from Sanders'. Against Sanders, Trump would have been a much less divisive candidate and probably looked more polished too. It was a close election already so it's easy to see it swing one way or the other if only a few things happened differently--still a Sanders ticket likely wouldn't have delivered a sure thing to the DNC.","human_ref_B":"This is something that has bothered me for awhile about the whole Bernie Sanders narrative, which is that Bernie Sanders *was not a democrat*. **I'm totally on board for saying that he probably would have beat Trump in a general election and would have made a better candidate than Hillary Clinton**. However many of the revelations that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton are completely understandable. Bernie Sanders was not and today IS NOT a democrat. Vermont does not require that you register your party affiliation so there is less paperwork to actually refer to and we must instead rely on statements. Bernie announced that he was a Democrat *DURING* the election, he was an independent. He left the party to go *back* to being an independent before it was over. The DNC exists to put **DEMOCRATS** into public office. So if you are a party boss like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who are you going to promote from within? The card carrying democrat of 30+ years and former first lady of a democrat president, or the guy that has refused to join your organization until just last week in the middle of your party's primaries? I'm not saying the system's right, but that *is* the system. We have parties that promote the party. The people that are loyal to the DNC. They backed the person they saw as being more supportive of them. Yeah it cost them the election and put Trump in the whitehouse, but to the DNC leadership a Bernie Sanders whitehouse is still a loss of DNC power. **I think the DNC leadership would rather lose with Hillary than risk their position in Washington under the outside leadership of Bernie.** And to them, I don't think they really thought they were going to lose with Hillary.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27333.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"5nwnd4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee. The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say \"Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump.\" That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dcfiia4","c_root_id_B":"dcfabfu","created_at_utc_A":1484429823,"created_at_utc_B":1484418474,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This is something that has bothered me for awhile about the whole Bernie Sanders narrative, which is that Bernie Sanders *was not a democrat*. **I'm totally on board for saying that he probably would have beat Trump in a general election and would have made a better candidate than Hillary Clinton**. However many of the revelations that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton are completely understandable. Bernie Sanders was not and today IS NOT a democrat. Vermont does not require that you register your party affiliation so there is less paperwork to actually refer to and we must instead rely on statements. Bernie announced that he was a Democrat *DURING* the election, he was an independent. He left the party to go *back* to being an independent before it was over. The DNC exists to put **DEMOCRATS** into public office. So if you are a party boss like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who are you going to promote from within? The card carrying democrat of 30+ years and former first lady of a democrat president, or the guy that has refused to join your organization until just last week in the middle of your party's primaries? I'm not saying the system's right, but that *is* the system. We have parties that promote the party. The people that are loyal to the DNC. They backed the person they saw as being more supportive of them. Yeah it cost them the election and put Trump in the whitehouse, but to the DNC leadership a Bernie Sanders whitehouse is still a loss of DNC power. **I think the DNC leadership would rather lose with Hillary than risk their position in Washington under the outside leadership of Bernie.** And to them, I don't think they really thought they were going to lose with Hillary.","human_ref_B":"I haven't read your whole post but I can tell you that you've set up an unreasonably difficult position to argue against when you say \"could have\". That's equivocation language.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11349.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"5nwnd4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee. The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say \"Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump.\" That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dcfxllk","c_root_id_B":"dcevk51","created_at_utc_A":1484449453,"created_at_utc_B":1484389064,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm late on this, but I have a very strong point of view here and wanted to weigh in. Hillary Clinton was very popular as Secretary of State. As she prepared to run for president starting in 2013, she was the subject of near-constant attacks from both the right and the left. Those attacks, as well as the baggage she'd acquired from more than 20 years in the public eye, left her damaged goods. But for the most part, she came prepackaged with that damage. James Comey seems to have legitimately hurt her, but most people had already made their mind up on Hillary one way or another long before the election. Bernie Sanders was virtually unknown prior to declaring his candidacy. He spent his presidential run being attacked by nobody. Hillary ran few negative ads about him; Republicans were afraid to attack him because they thought Hillary would be the nominee and feared alienating his populist supporters, who they hoped to snag in the general election. There was also very little opposition research about Bernie, and very little publicity of anything negative even if it was known. This is a guy who's been on the political scene forever. You think he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet because nobody felt it necessary to dig them up. Bernie is not a saint. He's a human being and a politician. There's dirt there -- somebody just needed to look for it. This is an avowed socialist we're talking about (I'd argue that he's a social democrat, not a democratic socialist, but that's neither here nor there). Is it really too hard to imagine some article he wrote back in the '70s or '80s praising the Soviet Union and attacking America coming to light? What about an old recording of him enthusiastically discussing his frankly obvious atheism and making fun of religious people? How do you think all of that would play with older, working-class voters? Here's a non-political example I always think of: Bernie has one child, Levi, born in 1969. Levi's mother and Bernie were never married; I don't believe they were ever even in that serious a relationship. What percentage of voters do you think know that fact? Two percent? Three percent? You know what percentage of voters would have known that if he'd won the nomination? One hundred percent, that's how many. Now, I don't care whether Bernie was married to the mother of his child. But this is America -- millions and millions of people would care a lot. Even Donald Trump hasn't committed that sin. (He just pays for the abortions.) If Bernie had won the Democratic nomination, playtime would have been over. Trump would have immediately started a barrage of attacks against Bernie, and they would have been the first many people who don't follow politics closely -- exactly the voters Trump relied on to win -- had even heard of him. Unlike with Hillary, Trump had an opportunity to define Bernie. And if there's one thing Donald Trump is good at, it's defining people. And how would Trump have defined Bernie? We don't have to guess. Trump, not exactly the best guy in the world at keeping secrets, couldn't resist leaking the mean nickname he had planned on several occasions: \"Crazy Bernie.\" This is a killer brand. Bernie looks the part and acts the part. When was the last time you heard someone accuse Bernie of being crazy? Never? Well, imagine an alternate 2017 where that's the definitive image people have of him -- as a ranting, raving old man with a tenuous grasp on reality. Remember, the only reason he was never tagged with that is because nobody ever had to tag him with it. Think about it, really think about it -- can you imagine that sticking? I bet you can. And here's the worst part. Throughout the general election, the biggest knock on Trump was not that he was a misogynist, was not that he was a racist, was not that he was a know-nothing. The most effective criticism of Trump was that he was crazy. Whenever he acted crazy or Hillary successfully branded him as crazy, his poll numbers plummeted. The idea that this man could have the nuclear codes scared the hell out of people in a way that the other stuff didn't. But if Trump had managed to brand Bernie as Crazy Bernie, it would have completely neutralized all of that. I think Trump would have wiped the floor with Bernie.","human_ref_B":"It is a nice fantasy. It means you imagine all those people who fear \"migrants\" do not exist. What would Bernie deliver to them? And the \"media\" constantly watches user numbers. if Clinton would not have sold their outlets but pro-Sanders articles had greater user turnout do you think they would not let Clinton fall and instead pushed Sanders. Simple. people fear too much progress and independent success. Simply fear it. Obviously they fear any kind of socialism. (Some argue that nowhere do state subsidies - in health systems - work and in many places there is utter chaos if free markets are blocked and the state power center does the sharing of wealth. What happns with innovations - why is there no innovation in Russia or China ? People see these things. Why do you think a power broker Central Committee member - who has everything of course - is better (as a person) than a millionaire who amassed his her wealth on the market? No it is not so sure a Socialist Utopia can be sold in America as yet...(But its time will come because it is true it has good sides too for the poor.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":60389.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"5nwnd4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee. The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say \"Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump.\" That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dcf00uu","c_root_id_B":"dcfxllk","created_at_utc_A":1484402490,"created_at_utc_B":1484449453,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Worth considering too is how Trump would have performed running against a man instead of a woman. Trump got hammered a lot for his sexism and this was a big theme because of Clinton's historic nomination. It's likely that women's rights & issues would have been less prominent on the Sanders campaign trail than the Clinton one and Trump would have ran a somewhat better campaign as a result--one that focused more on Republican ideals that differ from Sanders'. Against Sanders, Trump would have been a much less divisive candidate and probably looked more polished too. It was a close election already so it's easy to see it swing one way or the other if only a few things happened differently--still a Sanders ticket likely wouldn't have delivered a sure thing to the DNC.","human_ref_B":"I'm late on this, but I have a very strong point of view here and wanted to weigh in. Hillary Clinton was very popular as Secretary of State. As she prepared to run for president starting in 2013, she was the subject of near-constant attacks from both the right and the left. Those attacks, as well as the baggage she'd acquired from more than 20 years in the public eye, left her damaged goods. But for the most part, she came prepackaged with that damage. James Comey seems to have legitimately hurt her, but most people had already made their mind up on Hillary one way or another long before the election. Bernie Sanders was virtually unknown prior to declaring his candidacy. He spent his presidential run being attacked by nobody. Hillary ran few negative ads about him; Republicans were afraid to attack him because they thought Hillary would be the nominee and feared alienating his populist supporters, who they hoped to snag in the general election. There was also very little opposition research about Bernie, and very little publicity of anything negative even if it was known. This is a guy who's been on the political scene forever. You think he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet because nobody felt it necessary to dig them up. Bernie is not a saint. He's a human being and a politician. There's dirt there -- somebody just needed to look for it. This is an avowed socialist we're talking about (I'd argue that he's a social democrat, not a democratic socialist, but that's neither here nor there). Is it really too hard to imagine some article he wrote back in the '70s or '80s praising the Soviet Union and attacking America coming to light? What about an old recording of him enthusiastically discussing his frankly obvious atheism and making fun of religious people? How do you think all of that would play with older, working-class voters? Here's a non-political example I always think of: Bernie has one child, Levi, born in 1969. Levi's mother and Bernie were never married; I don't believe they were ever even in that serious a relationship. What percentage of voters do you think know that fact? Two percent? Three percent? You know what percentage of voters would have known that if he'd won the nomination? One hundred percent, that's how many. Now, I don't care whether Bernie was married to the mother of his child. But this is America -- millions and millions of people would care a lot. Even Donald Trump hasn't committed that sin. (He just pays for the abortions.) If Bernie had won the Democratic nomination, playtime would have been over. Trump would have immediately started a barrage of attacks against Bernie, and they would have been the first many people who don't follow politics closely -- exactly the voters Trump relied on to win -- had even heard of him. Unlike with Hillary, Trump had an opportunity to define Bernie. And if there's one thing Donald Trump is good at, it's defining people. And how would Trump have defined Bernie? We don't have to guess. Trump, not exactly the best guy in the world at keeping secrets, couldn't resist leaking the mean nickname he had planned on several occasions: \"Crazy Bernie.\" This is a killer brand. Bernie looks the part and acts the part. When was the last time you heard someone accuse Bernie of being crazy? Never? Well, imagine an alternate 2017 where that's the definitive image people have of him -- as a ranting, raving old man with a tenuous grasp on reality. Remember, the only reason he was never tagged with that is because nobody ever had to tag him with it. Think about it, really think about it -- can you imagine that sticking? I bet you can. And here's the worst part. Throughout the general election, the biggest knock on Trump was not that he was a misogynist, was not that he was a racist, was not that he was a know-nothing. The most effective criticism of Trump was that he was crazy. Whenever he acted crazy or Hillary successfully branded him as crazy, his poll numbers plummeted. The idea that this man could have the nuclear codes scared the hell out of people in a way that the other stuff didn't. But if Trump had managed to brand Bernie as Crazy Bernie, it would have completely neutralized all of that. I think Trump would have wiped the floor with Bernie.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":46963.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"5nwnd4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee. The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say \"Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump.\" That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dcfxllk","c_root_id_B":"dcfabfu","created_at_utc_A":1484449453,"created_at_utc_B":1484418474,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm late on this, but I have a very strong point of view here and wanted to weigh in. Hillary Clinton was very popular as Secretary of State. As she prepared to run for president starting in 2013, she was the subject of near-constant attacks from both the right and the left. Those attacks, as well as the baggage she'd acquired from more than 20 years in the public eye, left her damaged goods. But for the most part, she came prepackaged with that damage. James Comey seems to have legitimately hurt her, but most people had already made their mind up on Hillary one way or another long before the election. Bernie Sanders was virtually unknown prior to declaring his candidacy. He spent his presidential run being attacked by nobody. Hillary ran few negative ads about him; Republicans were afraid to attack him because they thought Hillary would be the nominee and feared alienating his populist supporters, who they hoped to snag in the general election. There was also very little opposition research about Bernie, and very little publicity of anything negative even if it was known. This is a guy who's been on the political scene forever. You think he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet because nobody felt it necessary to dig them up. Bernie is not a saint. He's a human being and a politician. There's dirt there -- somebody just needed to look for it. This is an avowed socialist we're talking about (I'd argue that he's a social democrat, not a democratic socialist, but that's neither here nor there). Is it really too hard to imagine some article he wrote back in the '70s or '80s praising the Soviet Union and attacking America coming to light? What about an old recording of him enthusiastically discussing his frankly obvious atheism and making fun of religious people? How do you think all of that would play with older, working-class voters? Here's a non-political example I always think of: Bernie has one child, Levi, born in 1969. Levi's mother and Bernie were never married; I don't believe they were ever even in that serious a relationship. What percentage of voters do you think know that fact? Two percent? Three percent? You know what percentage of voters would have known that if he'd won the nomination? One hundred percent, that's how many. Now, I don't care whether Bernie was married to the mother of his child. But this is America -- millions and millions of people would care a lot. Even Donald Trump hasn't committed that sin. (He just pays for the abortions.) If Bernie had won the Democratic nomination, playtime would have been over. Trump would have immediately started a barrage of attacks against Bernie, and they would have been the first many people who don't follow politics closely -- exactly the voters Trump relied on to win -- had even heard of him. Unlike with Hillary, Trump had an opportunity to define Bernie. And if there's one thing Donald Trump is good at, it's defining people. And how would Trump have defined Bernie? We don't have to guess. Trump, not exactly the best guy in the world at keeping secrets, couldn't resist leaking the mean nickname he had planned on several occasions: \"Crazy Bernie.\" This is a killer brand. Bernie looks the part and acts the part. When was the last time you heard someone accuse Bernie of being crazy? Never? Well, imagine an alternate 2017 where that's the definitive image people have of him -- as a ranting, raving old man with a tenuous grasp on reality. Remember, the only reason he was never tagged with that is because nobody ever had to tag him with it. Think about it, really think about it -- can you imagine that sticking? I bet you can. And here's the worst part. Throughout the general election, the biggest knock on Trump was not that he was a misogynist, was not that he was a racist, was not that he was a know-nothing. The most effective criticism of Trump was that he was crazy. Whenever he acted crazy or Hillary successfully branded him as crazy, his poll numbers plummeted. The idea that this man could have the nuclear codes scared the hell out of people in a way that the other stuff didn't. But if Trump had managed to brand Bernie as Crazy Bernie, it would have completely neutralized all of that. I think Trump would have wiped the floor with Bernie.","human_ref_B":"I haven't read your whole post but I can tell you that you've set up an unreasonably difficult position to argue against when you say \"could have\". That's equivocation language.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30979.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"5nwnd4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump, had he been the Democrat nominee. The biggest mistake the DNC made last year was choosing Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The biggest mistake the Mainstream Media made last year was promoting Hillary Clinton as the rightful successor to President Obama's role, while ignoring Bernie Sanders. Even the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made was to surrender to Hillary Clinton, rather than continue supporting his followers and promise them he can do better than her. Ranging from the college I go to, to the internet groups I hang out with, there is always going to be someone who would say \"Bernie would have swept the floor with Trump.\" That, thanks to Bernie Sanders's natural charisma, social policies, and the large amount of threat he generates towards both parties, he could have become the biggest thing to ever come out of the United States in years. With President Sanders, we would have become a successful democratic-socialist nation that prides itself on its liberal and free culture. So, let's say I agree. Let's say that, yes, Sanders could have defeated Trump and nabbed enough electoral votes to overtake his opponent. No doubt, Sanders could win the popular vote, as well, with assistance from the millennial generation. This all would have happened, if Sanders was put into the same spotlight as Hillary and hailed as the evolution of President Obama's policies. I would have a reduced college bill to pay, the amount of money I make at part-time jobs for experience is now $15 or more, I now have a larger array of infrastructure jobs I could enter into, and much of what I would normally pay for in a capitalist system is now free, thanks to the government. After all, if it works for many European nations and Canada to our north, why can't it work for us? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dcfabfu","c_root_id_B":"dcg9ih1","created_at_utc_A":1484418474,"created_at_utc_B":1484471742,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I haven't read your whole post but I can tell you that you've set up an unreasonably difficult position to argue against when you say \"could have\". That's equivocation language.","human_ref_B":"Sorry I am late to the party. Kurt Eichenwald wrote a interesting piece post election that detailed what he called \"Myths Democrats Swallowed...\" The second of which is that Sanders would have beaten Trump. His arguments revolve around the tonnage of baggage that surrounds Sanders that was never brought up because (a) he and Hillary ran a relatively clean primary and (b) even though republicans had done opposition research on Sanders they *wanted* him to do well against Hillary.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":53268.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"j4a13f","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: It is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide. People who are against social programs tend to also be against abortion and assisted suicide (or at least against abortion). Obviously I\u2019m talking about conservatives, most of them have these types of views and mindsets. Think about it, whether you\u2019re born with disabilities or simply defeated by the unfairness of society and life, you didn\u2019t get to have any input on being born. Obviously, it\u2019s impossible to consent to being born (one guy sued his parents for doing so, but I\u2019m not advocating that). What I AM advocating, is taxes funding more social assistance, not just for particular hard times (what the GOVERNMENT is willing to consider \u201chard times\u201d) but as a HUMAN RIGHT. I\u2019m not asking you to change my mind on supporting these social policies, but to change my mind on believing that \u201cIt is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide.\u201d","c_root_id_A":"g7hlu9r","c_root_id_B":"g7hsjvj","created_at_utc_A":1601703809,"created_at_utc_B":1601709824,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"You didn'T really clarify why that combination is what makes it cruel. AT least I didn't really understand your point on that.","human_ref_B":"While I personally think enacting these social programs would be a good thing, I push back on people who claim that those who are against these programs are cruel. They simply have a different value system, one that makes sense to them based on their life experience and what they\u2019ve been taught. Arguments I\u2019ve heard against universal healthcare: - taxes would need to be raised (when people are already struggling as it is to live- this could also be considered cruel) - they don\u2019t trust the government to handle healthcare and would rather the free market take care of it so they have choices. - it would disrupt the system already in place with something untested and unknown. They wonder if it would just make things worse. - they believe they should be free to choose whether they pay into this system. Not everyone believes it would be a good value for them and would rather spend their money on other things. - they don\u2019t believe people should rely on the government so much because it gives us less freedom from their point of view. I\u2019ll stop there because it\u2019s getting really late for me here but maybe you get the idea. People have different ideas on what\u2019s good for others and themselves. A conservative could easily believe that you are cruel for believing we should enact these things. Each side is very obviously passionate about what to do about each of these issues and each side believes the other side is being dumb and\/or cruel for wanting what they want for the country.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6015.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"j4a13f","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: It is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide. People who are against social programs tend to also be against abortion and assisted suicide (or at least against abortion). Obviously I\u2019m talking about conservatives, most of them have these types of views and mindsets. Think about it, whether you\u2019re born with disabilities or simply defeated by the unfairness of society and life, you didn\u2019t get to have any input on being born. Obviously, it\u2019s impossible to consent to being born (one guy sued his parents for doing so, but I\u2019m not advocating that). What I AM advocating, is taxes funding more social assistance, not just for particular hard times (what the GOVERNMENT is willing to consider \u201chard times\u201d) but as a HUMAN RIGHT. I\u2019m not asking you to change my mind on supporting these social policies, but to change my mind on believing that \u201cIt is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide.\u201d","c_root_id_A":"g7hmzfw","c_root_id_B":"g7hsjvj","created_at_utc_A":1601704785,"created_at_utc_B":1601709824,"score_A":6,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Well, UBI and universal healthcare would annihilate the US economy, so that doesn\u2019t work just from a money perspective. I, personally, see nothing coming even close to guaranteeing a right to abortion in the Constitution, therefore, the state governments should decide, not the federal government. When it comes to assisted suicide, that\u2019s cruel in and of itself, especially for the doctor\/psychologist. Seriously, imagine giving someone the means to end their life because of an incurable disease, and having to sleep knowing that that person would be alive if it wasn\u2019t for your actions. No doctor should have to make a decision like that. It\u2019s not healthy. As a moderate libertarian, it\u2019s my belief that the government needs to protect you, first and foremost. Allowing doctors to assist someone in suicide will likely lead to an uptick in doctors committing suicide from the stress of making those decisions every day. That\u2019s why I think the combination of these beliefs isn\u2019t cruel- the first two ideas don\u2019t work, the last one is unethical, and the other should only be used as an absolute last resort because of the things it can do to a mother, physically and mentally, not to mention that it ends the life of a child before it even has a chance to start. I don\u2019t understand why that specific combination is cruel at all.","human_ref_B":"While I personally think enacting these social programs would be a good thing, I push back on people who claim that those who are against these programs are cruel. They simply have a different value system, one that makes sense to them based on their life experience and what they\u2019ve been taught. Arguments I\u2019ve heard against universal healthcare: - taxes would need to be raised (when people are already struggling as it is to live- this could also be considered cruel) - they don\u2019t trust the government to handle healthcare and would rather the free market take care of it so they have choices. - it would disrupt the system already in place with something untested and unknown. They wonder if it would just make things worse. - they believe they should be free to choose whether they pay into this system. Not everyone believes it would be a good value for them and would rather spend their money on other things. - they don\u2019t believe people should rely on the government so much because it gives us less freedom from their point of view. I\u2019ll stop there because it\u2019s getting really late for me here but maybe you get the idea. People have different ideas on what\u2019s good for others and themselves. A conservative could easily believe that you are cruel for believing we should enact these things. Each side is very obviously passionate about what to do about each of these issues and each side believes the other side is being dumb and\/or cruel for wanting what they want for the country.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5039.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667} {"post_id":"j4a13f","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: It is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide. People who are against social programs tend to also be against abortion and assisted suicide (or at least against abortion). Obviously I\u2019m talking about conservatives, most of them have these types of views and mindsets. Think about it, whether you\u2019re born with disabilities or simply defeated by the unfairness of society and life, you didn\u2019t get to have any input on being born. Obviously, it\u2019s impossible to consent to being born (one guy sued his parents for doing so, but I\u2019m not advocating that). What I AM advocating, is taxes funding more social assistance, not just for particular hard times (what the GOVERNMENT is willing to consider \u201chard times\u201d) but as a HUMAN RIGHT. I\u2019m not asking you to change my mind on supporting these social policies, but to change my mind on believing that \u201cIt is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide.\u201d","c_root_id_A":"g7hsjvj","c_root_id_B":"g7hn0iu","created_at_utc_A":1601709824,"created_at_utc_B":1601704813,"score_A":13,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"While I personally think enacting these social programs would be a good thing, I push back on people who claim that those who are against these programs are cruel. They simply have a different value system, one that makes sense to them based on their life experience and what they\u2019ve been taught. Arguments I\u2019ve heard against universal healthcare: - taxes would need to be raised (when people are already struggling as it is to live- this could also be considered cruel) - they don\u2019t trust the government to handle healthcare and would rather the free market take care of it so they have choices. - it would disrupt the system already in place with something untested and unknown. They wonder if it would just make things worse. - they believe they should be free to choose whether they pay into this system. Not everyone believes it would be a good value for them and would rather spend their money on other things. - they don\u2019t believe people should rely on the government so much because it gives us less freedom from their point of view. I\u2019ll stop there because it\u2019s getting really late for me here but maybe you get the idea. People have different ideas on what\u2019s good for others and themselves. A conservative could easily believe that you are cruel for believing we should enact these things. Each side is very obviously passionate about what to do about each of these issues and each side believes the other side is being dumb and\/or cruel for wanting what they want for the country.","human_ref_B":"Is it cruel? I would say no. I agree that supporting social programs is morally good (in the same way that helping your neighbor would be good), but you could argue that it is a supererogatory action. To not help your neighbor is not necessarily blameworthy, though the opposite might be praiseworthy. You could argue that helping our neighbors is a moral requirement, but I struggle to see how failing to do so would be cruel, per se. I also struggle to see how a set of beliefs can be in itself cruel, unless the separate beliefs are considered cruel in their own right, or the set of beliefs is somehow associated with a cruel action. That being said, I would argue that this view (anti-social programs+anti-assisted suicide) is inconsistent. To oppose social programs is to prioritize autonomy over order (and in the long run, life), while opposing abortion and assisted suicide prioritizes life over autonomy. This would be equivalent to refusing to help your neighbor when they ask for it, and then forcing them to accept your \u201chelp\u201d when they no longer want it. Again, an inconsistent view, but I wouldn\u2019t necessarily call the set of beliefs itself cruel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5011.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} {"post_id":"j4a13f","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: It is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide. People who are against social programs tend to also be against abortion and assisted suicide (or at least against abortion). Obviously I\u2019m talking about conservatives, most of them have these types of views and mindsets. Think about it, whether you\u2019re born with disabilities or simply defeated by the unfairness of society and life, you didn\u2019t get to have any input on being born. Obviously, it\u2019s impossible to consent to being born (one guy sued his parents for doing so, but I\u2019m not advocating that). What I AM advocating, is taxes funding more social assistance, not just for particular hard times (what the GOVERNMENT is willing to consider \u201chard times\u201d) but as a HUMAN RIGHT. I\u2019m not asking you to change my mind on supporting these social policies, but to change my mind on believing that \u201cIt is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide.\u201d","c_root_id_A":"g7ix0uu","c_root_id_B":"g7hlu9r","created_at_utc_A":1601741694,"created_at_utc_B":1601703809,"score_A":12,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"My issue with assisted suicide WITH universal healthcare is that maybe we will become a people that encourages it in the less fortunate, so there\u2019s more money and resources for more \u201cdeserving\u201d people. The same with abortion and UBI, if there\u2019s one extra life, it costs more money to the population at large. All of a sudden having a baby becomes everyone else\u2019s business because now everyone or even worse corporations are invested in the outcome. Me, I think UBI is cruel, I\u2019m not against giving people money, it\u2019s giving them money just for existing, I think some people will be able to handle it, but I think it will lead to more feelings of worthlessness and suicides. I think instead they need to come up with jobs, maintaining our parks, public lands, more teachers, more public health workers. I\u2019m also somewhat against universal healthcare. I think public health needs a big boost, the FDA needs some more measures to guard against corruption, and EMS should be covered, which people don\u2019t have a choice on whether to be paid or not. I\u2018m worried much more will discourage innovation, medical workers will not be fairly compensated for higher skill, people will not be able to choose the doctor they see, the procedure they get, or the medication (which is already a problem with private insurance). So I do think healthcare will deteriorate, which could be considered cruel.","human_ref_B":"You didn'T really clarify why that combination is what makes it cruel. AT least I didn't really understand your point on that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37885.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"j4a13f","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: It is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide. People who are against social programs tend to also be against abortion and assisted suicide (or at least against abortion). Obviously I\u2019m talking about conservatives, most of them have these types of views and mindsets. Think about it, whether you\u2019re born with disabilities or simply defeated by the unfairness of society and life, you didn\u2019t get to have any input on being born. Obviously, it\u2019s impossible to consent to being born (one guy sued his parents for doing so, but I\u2019m not advocating that). What I AM advocating, is taxes funding more social assistance, not just for particular hard times (what the GOVERNMENT is willing to consider \u201chard times\u201d) but as a HUMAN RIGHT. I\u2019m not asking you to change my mind on supporting these social policies, but to change my mind on believing that \u201cIt is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide.\u201d","c_root_id_A":"g7ix0uu","c_root_id_B":"g7hmzfw","created_at_utc_A":1601741694,"created_at_utc_B":1601704785,"score_A":12,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"My issue with assisted suicide WITH universal healthcare is that maybe we will become a people that encourages it in the less fortunate, so there\u2019s more money and resources for more \u201cdeserving\u201d people. The same with abortion and UBI, if there\u2019s one extra life, it costs more money to the population at large. All of a sudden having a baby becomes everyone else\u2019s business because now everyone or even worse corporations are invested in the outcome. Me, I think UBI is cruel, I\u2019m not against giving people money, it\u2019s giving them money just for existing, I think some people will be able to handle it, but I think it will lead to more feelings of worthlessness and suicides. I think instead they need to come up with jobs, maintaining our parks, public lands, more teachers, more public health workers. I\u2019m also somewhat against universal healthcare. I think public health needs a big boost, the FDA needs some more measures to guard against corruption, and EMS should be covered, which people don\u2019t have a choice on whether to be paid or not. I\u2018m worried much more will discourage innovation, medical workers will not be fairly compensated for higher skill, people will not be able to choose the doctor they see, the procedure they get, or the medication (which is already a problem with private insurance). So I do think healthcare will deteriorate, which could be considered cruel.","human_ref_B":"Well, UBI and universal healthcare would annihilate the US economy, so that doesn\u2019t work just from a money perspective. I, personally, see nothing coming even close to guaranteeing a right to abortion in the Constitution, therefore, the state governments should decide, not the federal government. When it comes to assisted suicide, that\u2019s cruel in and of itself, especially for the doctor\/psychologist. Seriously, imagine giving someone the means to end their life because of an incurable disease, and having to sleep knowing that that person would be alive if it wasn\u2019t for your actions. No doctor should have to make a decision like that. It\u2019s not healthy. As a moderate libertarian, it\u2019s my belief that the government needs to protect you, first and foremost. Allowing doctors to assist someone in suicide will likely lead to an uptick in doctors committing suicide from the stress of making those decisions every day. That\u2019s why I think the combination of these beliefs isn\u2019t cruel- the first two ideas don\u2019t work, the last one is unethical, and the other should only be used as an absolute last resort because of the things it can do to a mother, physically and mentally, not to mention that it ends the life of a child before it even has a chance to start. I don\u2019t understand why that specific combination is cruel at all.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":36909.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"j4a13f","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: It is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide. People who are against social programs tend to also be against abortion and assisted suicide (or at least against abortion). Obviously I\u2019m talking about conservatives, most of them have these types of views and mindsets. Think about it, whether you\u2019re born with disabilities or simply defeated by the unfairness of society and life, you didn\u2019t get to have any input on being born. Obviously, it\u2019s impossible to consent to being born (one guy sued his parents for doing so, but I\u2019m not advocating that). What I AM advocating, is taxes funding more social assistance, not just for particular hard times (what the GOVERNMENT is willing to consider \u201chard times\u201d) but as a HUMAN RIGHT. I\u2019m not asking you to change my mind on supporting these social policies, but to change my mind on believing that \u201cIt is cruel to be against Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare, AND against abortion and assisted suicide.\u201d","c_root_id_A":"g7ix0uu","c_root_id_B":"g7hn0iu","created_at_utc_A":1601741694,"created_at_utc_B":1601704813,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"My issue with assisted suicide WITH universal healthcare is that maybe we will become a people that encourages it in the less fortunate, so there\u2019s more money and resources for more \u201cdeserving\u201d people. The same with abortion and UBI, if there\u2019s one extra life, it costs more money to the population at large. All of a sudden having a baby becomes everyone else\u2019s business because now everyone or even worse corporations are invested in the outcome. Me, I think UBI is cruel, I\u2019m not against giving people money, it\u2019s giving them money just for existing, I think some people will be able to handle it, but I think it will lead to more feelings of worthlessness and suicides. I think instead they need to come up with jobs, maintaining our parks, public lands, more teachers, more public health workers. I\u2019m also somewhat against universal healthcare. I think public health needs a big boost, the FDA needs some more measures to guard against corruption, and EMS should be covered, which people don\u2019t have a choice on whether to be paid or not. I\u2018m worried much more will discourage innovation, medical workers will not be fairly compensated for higher skill, people will not be able to choose the doctor they see, the procedure they get, or the medication (which is already a problem with private insurance). So I do think healthcare will deteriorate, which could be considered cruel.","human_ref_B":"Is it cruel? I would say no. I agree that supporting social programs is morally good (in the same way that helping your neighbor would be good), but you could argue that it is a supererogatory action. To not help your neighbor is not necessarily blameworthy, though the opposite might be praiseworthy. You could argue that helping our neighbors is a moral requirement, but I struggle to see how failing to do so would be cruel, per se. I also struggle to see how a set of beliefs can be in itself cruel, unless the separate beliefs are considered cruel in their own right, or the set of beliefs is somehow associated with a cruel action. That being said, I would argue that this view (anti-social programs+anti-assisted suicide) is inconsistent. To oppose social programs is to prioritize autonomy over order (and in the long run, life), while opposing abortion and assisted suicide prioritizes life over autonomy. This would be equivalent to refusing to help your neighbor when they ask for it, and then forcing them to accept your \u201chelp\u201d when they no longer want it. Again, an inconsistent view, but I wouldn\u2019t necessarily call the set of beliefs itself cruel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":36881.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"au95ws","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV:\"Positive Rights\", such as healthcare, are not feasibly universal human rights, and should never supersede negative rights. Positive rights are rights that demand action, whereas negative rights demand inaction. It is generally understood that positive rights serve a provisionary purpose while the goal of negative rights is one of protection. The rights to freedom of speech, to own firearms, to be free from unreasonable search, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are all well-known, established, negative rights. The idea of the right to food, healthcare, or to be free of discrimination of others are prominent examples of positive rights. While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen, an increasingly strong argument for positive rights is being made among both the populace and government. Many of these arguments for positive rights seem reasonable, and are very popular. These arguments, however, overlook the importance of negative rights as they correlate to positive rights, and how they both effect society over time. Positive rights, while they look very attractive on the surface, tend to be detrimental to both established rights and society in the long term, especially when they must supersede negative rights to exist. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"eh6hbrb","c_root_id_B":"eh6gz4a","created_at_utc_A":1551024167,"created_at_utc_B":1551023926,"score_A":16,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Why is free of discrimination a positive right, whereas free from cruel and unusual punishment a negative right? I haven't heard of rights being positive or negative in this way before.","human_ref_B":"Why would they supersede negative rights exactly? Positive rights to me seem conditioned upon how much money the government has. In fact if the government has to spend more money on positive rights they have less money for everything else including to spend on curtailing negative rights. So in that sense the two are linked.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":241.0,"score_ratio":3.2} {"post_id":"au95ws","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV:\"Positive Rights\", such as healthcare, are not feasibly universal human rights, and should never supersede negative rights. Positive rights are rights that demand action, whereas negative rights demand inaction. It is generally understood that positive rights serve a provisionary purpose while the goal of negative rights is one of protection. The rights to freedom of speech, to own firearms, to be free from unreasonable search, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are all well-known, established, negative rights. The idea of the right to food, healthcare, or to be free of discrimination of others are prominent examples of positive rights. While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen, an increasingly strong argument for positive rights is being made among both the populace and government. Many of these arguments for positive rights seem reasonable, and are very popular. These arguments, however, overlook the importance of negative rights as they correlate to positive rights, and how they both effect society over time. Positive rights, while they look very attractive on the surface, tend to be detrimental to both established rights and society in the long term, especially when they must supersede negative rights to exist. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"eh6gz4a","c_root_id_B":"eh6ipgv","created_at_utc_A":1551023926,"created_at_utc_B":1551025176,"score_A":5,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Why would they supersede negative rights exactly? Positive rights to me seem conditioned upon how much money the government has. In fact if the government has to spend more money on positive rights they have less money for everything else including to spend on curtailing negative rights. So in that sense the two are linked.","human_ref_B":"It seems like the primary difference between \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\" is perspective. Things like personal autonomy and personal property seem \"natural\" to us because they're so well established in our culture, but they're also \"positive rights.\" The OP mentions the right to own guns as an example of a \"negative right.\" For a good while in US history there was a right to own slaves. Was that a \"negative right\" or a \"positive right?\" > ... While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen ... People believed in some of those rights befure \"American citizen\" was even a thing. > ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ... And have reneged on them when it became expedient. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Korematsu_v._United_States","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1250.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"au95ws","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV:\"Positive Rights\", such as healthcare, are not feasibly universal human rights, and should never supersede negative rights. Positive rights are rights that demand action, whereas negative rights demand inaction. It is generally understood that positive rights serve a provisionary purpose while the goal of negative rights is one of protection. The rights to freedom of speech, to own firearms, to be free from unreasonable search, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are all well-known, established, negative rights. The idea of the right to food, healthcare, or to be free of discrimination of others are prominent examples of positive rights. While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen, an increasingly strong argument for positive rights is being made among both the populace and government. Many of these arguments for positive rights seem reasonable, and are very popular. These arguments, however, overlook the importance of negative rights as they correlate to positive rights, and how they both effect society over time. Positive rights, while they look very attractive on the surface, tend to be detrimental to both established rights and society in the long term, especially when they must supersede negative rights to exist. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"eh6i8dz","c_root_id_B":"eh6ipgv","created_at_utc_A":1551024831,"created_at_utc_B":1551025176,"score_A":5,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"My main argument to this is that there is at least some level of forcing action from most negative rights. For instance say a thief is robbing you. A policeman is now obligated by his job to take some sort of action to stop him. Your negative right of not being robbed has just made someone else do something to protect you anyway. Without the police intervening (or someone else - not splitting hairs on that but someone must take some action), thievery would effectively be uncontrolled and you would for all real intent and purposes not have the right to not be robbed anymore. The same goes with courts ruling laws unconsitutional. Yes, you have the negative right to freedom of speech, but someone is then required to ensure it isn't violated.","human_ref_B":"It seems like the primary difference between \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\" is perspective. Things like personal autonomy and personal property seem \"natural\" to us because they're so well established in our culture, but they're also \"positive rights.\" The OP mentions the right to own guns as an example of a \"negative right.\" For a good while in US history there was a right to own slaves. Was that a \"negative right\" or a \"positive right?\" > ... While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen ... People believed in some of those rights befure \"American citizen\" was even a thing. > ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ... And have reneged on them when it became expedient. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Korematsu_v._United_States","labels":0,"seconds_difference":345.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"au95ws","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV:\"Positive Rights\", such as healthcare, are not feasibly universal human rights, and should never supersede negative rights. Positive rights are rights that demand action, whereas negative rights demand inaction. It is generally understood that positive rights serve a provisionary purpose while the goal of negative rights is one of protection. The rights to freedom of speech, to own firearms, to be free from unreasonable search, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are all well-known, established, negative rights. The idea of the right to food, healthcare, or to be free of discrimination of others are prominent examples of positive rights. While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen, an increasingly strong argument for positive rights is being made among both the populace and government. Many of these arguments for positive rights seem reasonable, and are very popular. These arguments, however, overlook the importance of negative rights as they correlate to positive rights, and how they both effect society over time. Positive rights, while they look very attractive on the surface, tend to be detrimental to both established rights and society in the long term, especially when they must supersede negative rights to exist. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"eh6il6h","c_root_id_B":"eh6ipgv","created_at_utc_A":1551025091,"created_at_utc_B":1551025176,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"How are positive rights detrimental to the government not doing stuff which is what negative rights are. The negative rights are things the government isn't supposed to do.","human_ref_B":"It seems like the primary difference between \"positive rights\" and \"negative rights\" is perspective. Things like personal autonomy and personal property seem \"natural\" to us because they're so well established in our culture, but they're also \"positive rights.\" The OP mentions the right to own guns as an example of a \"negative right.\" For a good while in US history there was a right to own slaves. Was that a \"negative right\" or a \"positive right?\" > ... While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen ... People believed in some of those rights befure \"American citizen\" was even a thing. > ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ... And have reneged on them when it became expedient. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Korematsu_v._United_States","labels":0,"seconds_difference":85.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"au95ws","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV:\"Positive Rights\", such as healthcare, are not feasibly universal human rights, and should never supersede negative rights. Positive rights are rights that demand action, whereas negative rights demand inaction. It is generally understood that positive rights serve a provisionary purpose while the goal of negative rights is one of protection. The rights to freedom of speech, to own firearms, to be free from unreasonable search, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are all well-known, established, negative rights. The idea of the right to food, healthcare, or to be free of discrimination of others are prominent examples of positive rights. While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen, an increasingly strong argument for positive rights is being made among both the populace and government. Many of these arguments for positive rights seem reasonable, and are very popular. These arguments, however, overlook the importance of negative rights as they correlate to positive rights, and how they both effect society over time. Positive rights, while they look very attractive on the surface, tend to be detrimental to both established rights and society in the long term, especially when they must supersede negative rights to exist. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"eh6nace","c_root_id_B":"eh6gz4a","created_at_utc_A":1551028598,"created_at_utc_B":1551023926,"score_A":13,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"How do you feel about the right to counsel? Taxpayers are constitutionally required to pay for public defenders for broke people who are accused of crimes. That's a positive right that demands action. Next, Thomas Jefferson described rights as \"self-evident\" and \"unalienable.\" The UN described them as \"universal.\" But let's not kid ourselves. Laws only exist if they can be enforced. The enforcing mechanism for these laws are collective agreement that we will stand up for one another if one person tries to violate it. But if the vast majority of people demand action, it's irrelevant. Using universal rights as a defense is like playing the \"I'm not touching you\" game. It only works until the other person gets irritated and punches you in the face. Ultimately, rights aren't a question of inherent good vs bad. They are a negotiated agreement amongst a wide range of actors to not hit below the belt. If someone wants to tweak the negotiation in their favor by adding in positive rights, and they have the actual power to do so, it's better to accept it than to lose everything.","human_ref_B":"Why would they supersede negative rights exactly? Positive rights to me seem conditioned upon how much money the government has. In fact if the government has to spend more money on positive rights they have less money for everything else including to spend on curtailing negative rights. So in that sense the two are linked.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4672.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"au95ws","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV:\"Positive Rights\", such as healthcare, are not feasibly universal human rights, and should never supersede negative rights. Positive rights are rights that demand action, whereas negative rights demand inaction. It is generally understood that positive rights serve a provisionary purpose while the goal of negative rights is one of protection. The rights to freedom of speech, to own firearms, to be free from unreasonable search, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are all well-known, established, negative rights. The idea of the right to food, healthcare, or to be free of discrimination of others are prominent examples of positive rights. While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen, an increasingly strong argument for positive rights is being made among both the populace and government. Many of these arguments for positive rights seem reasonable, and are very popular. These arguments, however, overlook the importance of negative rights as they correlate to positive rights, and how they both effect society over time. Positive rights, while they look very attractive on the surface, tend to be detrimental to both established rights and society in the long term, especially when they must supersede negative rights to exist. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"eh6i8dz","c_root_id_B":"eh6nace","created_at_utc_A":1551024831,"created_at_utc_B":1551028598,"score_A":5,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"My main argument to this is that there is at least some level of forcing action from most negative rights. For instance say a thief is robbing you. A policeman is now obligated by his job to take some sort of action to stop him. Your negative right of not being robbed has just made someone else do something to protect you anyway. Without the police intervening (or someone else - not splitting hairs on that but someone must take some action), thievery would effectively be uncontrolled and you would for all real intent and purposes not have the right to not be robbed anymore. The same goes with courts ruling laws unconsitutional. Yes, you have the negative right to freedom of speech, but someone is then required to ensure it isn't violated.","human_ref_B":"How do you feel about the right to counsel? Taxpayers are constitutionally required to pay for public defenders for broke people who are accused of crimes. That's a positive right that demands action. Next, Thomas Jefferson described rights as \"self-evident\" and \"unalienable.\" The UN described them as \"universal.\" But let's not kid ourselves. Laws only exist if they can be enforced. The enforcing mechanism for these laws are collective agreement that we will stand up for one another if one person tries to violate it. But if the vast majority of people demand action, it's irrelevant. Using universal rights as a defense is like playing the \"I'm not touching you\" game. It only works until the other person gets irritated and punches you in the face. Ultimately, rights aren't a question of inherent good vs bad. They are a negotiated agreement amongst a wide range of actors to not hit below the belt. If someone wants to tweak the negotiation in their favor by adding in positive rights, and they have the actual power to do so, it's better to accept it than to lose everything.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3767.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"au95ws","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV:\"Positive Rights\", such as healthcare, are not feasibly universal human rights, and should never supersede negative rights. Positive rights are rights that demand action, whereas negative rights demand inaction. It is generally understood that positive rights serve a provisionary purpose while the goal of negative rights is one of protection. The rights to freedom of speech, to own firearms, to be free from unreasonable search, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are all well-known, established, negative rights. The idea of the right to food, healthcare, or to be free of discrimination of others are prominent examples of positive rights. While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen, an increasingly strong argument for positive rights is being made among both the populace and government. Many of these arguments for positive rights seem reasonable, and are very popular. These arguments, however, overlook the importance of negative rights as they correlate to positive rights, and how they both effect society over time. Positive rights, while they look very attractive on the surface, tend to be detrimental to both established rights and society in the long term, especially when they must supersede negative rights to exist. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"eh6j43z","c_root_id_B":"eh6nace","created_at_utc_A":1551025472,"created_at_utc_B":1551028598,"score_A":5,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"If someone kills you should you and your family's positive right to justice never supersede the killer's negative right to liberty? In a broader sense is someones negative rights being taken away for violating someone elses negative rights not in itself a positive right?","human_ref_B":"How do you feel about the right to counsel? Taxpayers are constitutionally required to pay for public defenders for broke people who are accused of crimes. That's a positive right that demands action. Next, Thomas Jefferson described rights as \"self-evident\" and \"unalienable.\" The UN described them as \"universal.\" But let's not kid ourselves. Laws only exist if they can be enforced. The enforcing mechanism for these laws are collective agreement that we will stand up for one another if one person tries to violate it. But if the vast majority of people demand action, it's irrelevant. Using universal rights as a defense is like playing the \"I'm not touching you\" game. It only works until the other person gets irritated and punches you in the face. Ultimately, rights aren't a question of inherent good vs bad. They are a negotiated agreement amongst a wide range of actors to not hit below the belt. If someone wants to tweak the negotiation in their favor by adding in positive rights, and they have the actual power to do so, it's better to accept it than to lose everything.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3126.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"au95ws","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV:\"Positive Rights\", such as healthcare, are not feasibly universal human rights, and should never supersede negative rights. Positive rights are rights that demand action, whereas negative rights demand inaction. It is generally understood that positive rights serve a provisionary purpose while the goal of negative rights is one of protection. The rights to freedom of speech, to own firearms, to be free from unreasonable search, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are all well-known, established, negative rights. The idea of the right to food, healthcare, or to be free of discrimination of others are prominent examples of positive rights. While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen, an increasingly strong argument for positive rights is being made among both the populace and government. Many of these arguments for positive rights seem reasonable, and are very popular. These arguments, however, overlook the importance of negative rights as they correlate to positive rights, and how they both effect society over time. Positive rights, while they look very attractive on the surface, tend to be detrimental to both established rights and society in the long term, especially when they must supersede negative rights to exist. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"eh6nace","c_root_id_B":"eh6il6h","created_at_utc_A":1551028598,"created_at_utc_B":1551025091,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"How do you feel about the right to counsel? Taxpayers are constitutionally required to pay for public defenders for broke people who are accused of crimes. That's a positive right that demands action. Next, Thomas Jefferson described rights as \"self-evident\" and \"unalienable.\" The UN described them as \"universal.\" But let's not kid ourselves. Laws only exist if they can be enforced. The enforcing mechanism for these laws are collective agreement that we will stand up for one another if one person tries to violate it. But if the vast majority of people demand action, it's irrelevant. Using universal rights as a defense is like playing the \"I'm not touching you\" game. It only works until the other person gets irritated and punches you in the face. Ultimately, rights aren't a question of inherent good vs bad. They are a negotiated agreement amongst a wide range of actors to not hit below the belt. If someone wants to tweak the negotiation in their favor by adding in positive rights, and they have the actual power to do so, it's better to accept it than to lose everything.","human_ref_B":"How are positive rights detrimental to the government not doing stuff which is what negative rights are. The negative rights are things the government isn't supposed to do.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3507.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"au95ws","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV:\"Positive Rights\", such as healthcare, are not feasibly universal human rights, and should never supersede negative rights. Positive rights are rights that demand action, whereas negative rights demand inaction. It is generally understood that positive rights serve a provisionary purpose while the goal of negative rights is one of protection. The rights to freedom of speech, to own firearms, to be free from unreasonable search, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are all well-known, established, negative rights. The idea of the right to food, healthcare, or to be free of discrimination of others are prominent examples of positive rights. While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen, an increasingly strong argument for positive rights is being made among both the populace and government. Many of these arguments for positive rights seem reasonable, and are very popular. These arguments, however, overlook the importance of negative rights as they correlate to positive rights, and how they both effect society over time. Positive rights, while they look very attractive on the surface, tend to be detrimental to both established rights and society in the long term, especially when they must supersede negative rights to exist. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"eh6il6h","c_root_id_B":"eh6j43z","created_at_utc_A":1551025091,"created_at_utc_B":1551025472,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"How are positive rights detrimental to the government not doing stuff which is what negative rights are. The negative rights are things the government isn't supposed to do.","human_ref_B":"If someone kills you should you and your family's positive right to justice never supersede the killer's negative right to liberty? In a broader sense is someones negative rights being taken away for violating someone elses negative rights not in itself a positive right?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":381.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"au95ws","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV:\"Positive Rights\", such as healthcare, are not feasibly universal human rights, and should never supersede negative rights. Positive rights are rights that demand action, whereas negative rights demand inaction. It is generally understood that positive rights serve a provisionary purpose while the goal of negative rights is one of protection. The rights to freedom of speech, to own firearms, to be free from unreasonable search, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are all well-known, established, negative rights. The idea of the right to food, healthcare, or to be free of discrimination of others are prominent examples of positive rights. While negative rights have long been established as fundamental rights of every American citizen, an increasingly strong argument for positive rights is being made among both the populace and government. Many of these arguments for positive rights seem reasonable, and are very popular. These arguments, however, overlook the importance of negative rights as they correlate to positive rights, and how they both effect society over time. Positive rights, while they look very attractive on the surface, tend to be detrimental to both established rights and society in the long term, especially when they must supersede negative rights to exist. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"eh6p2kc","c_root_id_B":"eh6il6h","created_at_utc_A":1551029914,"created_at_utc_B":1551025091,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"These two subsets of rights are equally important and should not even be separated like this. The idea of prioritizing negative rights, especially in the US, requires a certain level of ignorance to the history of direct benefits provided by the government but only delivered to certain groups of people. For example, when some libertarian says \"we can't afford to to have the government provide housing assistance college education at reduced prices\", they're conveniently forgetting the New Deal and the GI Bill that provided education and mortgages to families all over the country and largely created the modern middle class. These positive rights policies worked very well in the past (for white people, but that's a separate issue). In fact, they worked so well that it led to the arrogance of the middle class to think that they did it all themselves, leading to the neoliberal turn of the 1980s when suddenly everything got really expensive. My dad paid like $3000 per semester in college (graduated in 1986) and my tuition is like $15k, far greater than the rate of inflation. The debate about healthcare is also super overblown as well. I don't understand why if we have free (or price reduced) healthcare there would suddenly be a whole bunch of people abusing the system. People hate going to the doctor. If anything, the abundance of coverage would lead to more preventative care versus advanced disease treatment. It's always cheaper to prevent disease than it is to treat it. The positive right, therefore, is a beneficial relationship between the reduced cost of providing healthcare as well as the reduced cost of receiving it. Finally, and others have said this, freedom from discrimination, even under your view of rights, should be regarded as a negative right (going back to your definitions). The expectation to be treated like anyone else is the same regarding the government and other people. Under the 14th amendment, all people have equal protection under the law, which means that the rules preventing the government from discriminating against people should apply to employers and businesses too.","human_ref_B":"How are positive rights detrimental to the government not doing stuff which is what negative rights are. The negative rights are things the government isn't supposed to do.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4823.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"y1a83w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: outside of subs like this, 99% there is no point in trying to convince others of any point in regards to religion and politics, so i dont think its rude to just not respond even on subs like debate religion, which I don't go on, I feel that sub is filled with people who have already made up their mind. Both sides are just there for cathartic reasons. That's fine. Like I'm not against venting. But I just think if anyone wants to convince others, 99% of the time its not gonna happen. Christian dude goes in already with bias. A short conversation with no human interaction isn't gonna make him realize he's wrong, and vice versa.. I don't know what's missing but I feel the internet is missing something that allows us to see more.. so I guess my view is more so that, on reddit (and maybe the internet) 99% of the time I'm just wasting my time repeating and expanding my point just for someone to say, no I still don't believe. So what's the point? I'm not motivated by anything I guess. Maybe I just don't care enough. I care enough to say my peace but after that... Eh.","c_root_id_A":"irw7l89","c_root_id_B":"irw8gsx","created_at_utc_A":1665499114,"created_at_utc_B":1665499479,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Often times when I see someone change thier mind, it's long after I had a discussion with them. Some amount of what I said leaked into thier subconscious and started to make sense, so they slowly start to agree with it and expand on it in thier own time. This happens to me a lot too. That's why it's incredibly important to always be polite and respectful when arguing, no one will listen to someone they don't respect.","human_ref_B":"People believe what they want to believe, and if the belief protects their ego, then they will defend it with their life and lash out emotionally against any arguments which threaten it. But if you can seduce someone to an idea, lead to to the idea, or make them receptive to some idea, then you can still change their mind. Around sensitive areas, it's like doing surgery. When it comes to general interesting knowledge and such, it's fairly easy, as there's little danger in interesting facts Discussions make more sense when you realize that it's not about truth or knowledge, but about taste, beliefs and peoples identification with certain ideas. You need to change approach. Talking with other people as if you were a psychiatrist helping them with delusions or paranoia might be more effective than telling them the truth. It's difficult, but it's not a lost cause. It might be too annoying for you to bother, though? Let me leave you with a quote: \"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":365.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"y1a83w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: outside of subs like this, 99% there is no point in trying to convince others of any point in regards to religion and politics, so i dont think its rude to just not respond even on subs like debate religion, which I don't go on, I feel that sub is filled with people who have already made up their mind. Both sides are just there for cathartic reasons. That's fine. Like I'm not against venting. But I just think if anyone wants to convince others, 99% of the time its not gonna happen. Christian dude goes in already with bias. A short conversation with no human interaction isn't gonna make him realize he's wrong, and vice versa.. I don't know what's missing but I feel the internet is missing something that allows us to see more.. so I guess my view is more so that, on reddit (and maybe the internet) 99% of the time I'm just wasting my time repeating and expanding my point just for someone to say, no I still don't believe. So what's the point? I'm not motivated by anything I guess. Maybe I just don't care enough. I care enough to say my peace but after that... Eh.","c_root_id_A":"irw8fk8","c_root_id_B":"irw8gsx","created_at_utc_A":1665499465,"created_at_utc_B":1665499479,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Even if you know it's not going to convince them, it's good for them to at least hear the other side of the argument. Give them something to think about. It's better to be informed of the other side of the argument and disagree with it, than be completely ignorant of it.","human_ref_B":"People believe what they want to believe, and if the belief protects their ego, then they will defend it with their life and lash out emotionally against any arguments which threaten it. But if you can seduce someone to an idea, lead to to the idea, or make them receptive to some idea, then you can still change their mind. Around sensitive areas, it's like doing surgery. When it comes to general interesting knowledge and such, it's fairly easy, as there's little danger in interesting facts Discussions make more sense when you realize that it's not about truth or knowledge, but about taste, beliefs and peoples identification with certain ideas. You need to change approach. Talking with other people as if you were a psychiatrist helping them with delusions or paranoia might be more effective than telling them the truth. It's difficult, but it's not a lost cause. It might be too annoying for you to bother, though? Let me leave you with a quote: \"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"y1a83w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: outside of subs like this, 99% there is no point in trying to convince others of any point in regards to religion and politics, so i dont think its rude to just not respond even on subs like debate religion, which I don't go on, I feel that sub is filled with people who have already made up their mind. Both sides are just there for cathartic reasons. That's fine. Like I'm not against venting. But I just think if anyone wants to convince others, 99% of the time its not gonna happen. Christian dude goes in already with bias. A short conversation with no human interaction isn't gonna make him realize he's wrong, and vice versa.. I don't know what's missing but I feel the internet is missing something that allows us to see more.. so I guess my view is more so that, on reddit (and maybe the internet) 99% of the time I'm just wasting my time repeating and expanding my point just for someone to say, no I still don't believe. So what's the point? I'm not motivated by anything I guess. Maybe I just don't care enough. I care enough to say my peace but after that... Eh.","c_root_id_A":"irw8o0s","c_root_id_B":"irw7l89","created_at_utc_A":1665499562,"created_at_utc_B":1665499114,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Firstly, learning there's a 'debate religion' thread made me laugh out loud! You may be viewing this from the wrong perspective though. Are you expecting conversions merely by making a solid, logical, fact-based statement? Rarely going to happen. Is it as pointless as you feel? Maybe, but I believe not. Yes, there are people so entrenched in their views there's no changing it, but many people *can* be swayed - just that many of those can't be swayed by one individual - and that is where I suspect your sense of hopelessness comes from. Don't be disheartened simply because it *seemed* like you had no influence - people prefer to change their view in private, rather than admit they were wrong in public, and it may take many opinions collectively to sway one individual.","human_ref_B":"Often times when I see someone change thier mind, it's long after I had a discussion with them. Some amount of what I said leaked into thier subconscious and started to make sense, so they slowly start to agree with it and expand on it in thier own time. This happens to me a lot too. That's why it's incredibly important to always be polite and respectful when arguing, no one will listen to someone they don't respect.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":448.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"y1a83w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: outside of subs like this, 99% there is no point in trying to convince others of any point in regards to religion and politics, so i dont think its rude to just not respond even on subs like debate religion, which I don't go on, I feel that sub is filled with people who have already made up their mind. Both sides are just there for cathartic reasons. That's fine. Like I'm not against venting. But I just think if anyone wants to convince others, 99% of the time its not gonna happen. Christian dude goes in already with bias. A short conversation with no human interaction isn't gonna make him realize he's wrong, and vice versa.. I don't know what's missing but I feel the internet is missing something that allows us to see more.. so I guess my view is more so that, on reddit (and maybe the internet) 99% of the time I'm just wasting my time repeating and expanding my point just for someone to say, no I still don't believe. So what's the point? I'm not motivated by anything I guess. Maybe I just don't care enough. I care enough to say my peace but after that... Eh.","c_root_id_A":"irw8o0s","c_root_id_B":"irw8fk8","created_at_utc_A":1665499562,"created_at_utc_B":1665499465,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Firstly, learning there's a 'debate religion' thread made me laugh out loud! You may be viewing this from the wrong perspective though. Are you expecting conversions merely by making a solid, logical, fact-based statement? Rarely going to happen. Is it as pointless as you feel? Maybe, but I believe not. Yes, there are people so entrenched in their views there's no changing it, but many people *can* be swayed - just that many of those can't be swayed by one individual - and that is where I suspect your sense of hopelessness comes from. Don't be disheartened simply because it *seemed* like you had no influence - people prefer to change their view in private, rather than admit they were wrong in public, and it may take many opinions collectively to sway one individual.","human_ref_B":"Even if you know it's not going to convince them, it's good for them to at least hear the other side of the argument. Give them something to think about. It's better to be informed of the other side of the argument and disagree with it, than be completely ignorant of it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":97.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"y1a83w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: outside of subs like this, 99% there is no point in trying to convince others of any point in regards to religion and politics, so i dont think its rude to just not respond even on subs like debate religion, which I don't go on, I feel that sub is filled with people who have already made up their mind. Both sides are just there for cathartic reasons. That's fine. Like I'm not against venting. But I just think if anyone wants to convince others, 99% of the time its not gonna happen. Christian dude goes in already with bias. A short conversation with no human interaction isn't gonna make him realize he's wrong, and vice versa.. I don't know what's missing but I feel the internet is missing something that allows us to see more.. so I guess my view is more so that, on reddit (and maybe the internet) 99% of the time I'm just wasting my time repeating and expanding my point just for someone to say, no I still don't believe. So what's the point? I'm not motivated by anything I guess. Maybe I just don't care enough. I care enough to say my peace but after that... Eh.","c_root_id_A":"irw8kqz","c_root_id_B":"irw8o0s","created_at_utc_A":1665499524,"created_at_utc_B":1665499562,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The people here aren't terribly special or different than the general public. If there are deltas here there are deltas out there too.","human_ref_B":"Firstly, learning there's a 'debate religion' thread made me laugh out loud! You may be viewing this from the wrong perspective though. Are you expecting conversions merely by making a solid, logical, fact-based statement? Rarely going to happen. Is it as pointless as you feel? Maybe, but I believe not. Yes, there are people so entrenched in their views there's no changing it, but many people *can* be swayed - just that many of those can't be swayed by one individual - and that is where I suspect your sense of hopelessness comes from. Don't be disheartened simply because it *seemed* like you had no influence - people prefer to change their view in private, rather than admit they were wrong in public, and it may take many opinions collectively to sway one individual.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"y1a83w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: outside of subs like this, 99% there is no point in trying to convince others of any point in regards to religion and politics, so i dont think its rude to just not respond even on subs like debate religion, which I don't go on, I feel that sub is filled with people who have already made up their mind. Both sides are just there for cathartic reasons. That's fine. Like I'm not against venting. But I just think if anyone wants to convince others, 99% of the time its not gonna happen. Christian dude goes in already with bias. A short conversation with no human interaction isn't gonna make him realize he's wrong, and vice versa.. I don't know what's missing but I feel the internet is missing something that allows us to see more.. so I guess my view is more so that, on reddit (and maybe the internet) 99% of the time I'm just wasting my time repeating and expanding my point just for someone to say, no I still don't believe. So what's the point? I'm not motivated by anything I guess. Maybe I just don't care enough. I care enough to say my peace but after that... Eh.","c_root_id_A":"irw7l89","c_root_id_B":"irw8fk8","created_at_utc_A":1665499114,"created_at_utc_B":1665499465,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Often times when I see someone change thier mind, it's long after I had a discussion with them. Some amount of what I said leaked into thier subconscious and started to make sense, so they slowly start to agree with it and expand on it in thier own time. This happens to me a lot too. That's why it's incredibly important to always be polite and respectful when arguing, no one will listen to someone they don't respect.","human_ref_B":"Even if you know it's not going to convince them, it's good for them to at least hear the other side of the argument. Give them something to think about. It's better to be informed of the other side of the argument and disagree with it, than be completely ignorant of it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":351.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"c0osf3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: If the US wanted to get serious about the cartels we would label them as terrorist organizations and treat them as such. The definition of a terrorist is anyone who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims. If you take any cartel and put them side by side to any terrorist organization they would hit almost every benchmark of each other. If the US really wanted to get serious about cartels they would label all known cartels as terrorists and you would approach them like we currently deal with terrorist organizations. The only reason we won't is because it's too close to home and it turns into a real problem. I get it's not exactly ideal to drone strike operations in Central and South America, but you could open up so much more avenues for prosecution and such. I'm not talking a \"war on drugs\" or starting a war with Mexico or other heavily controlled cartel countries, but encountering these organizations in the US would be more beneficial law enforcement wise than it is now. Catching an MS 13 subject now is a pat on the back, nice job; catching an ISIS member is national news. These cartels are doing the same thing just not to US troops which is the only reason nobody cares. I have to assume the main argument is money. There's too much money to be made by having them run crazy still. Outside of that I haven't heard many realistic arguments. Please change my view. I am open to any argument to explain why they shouldn't be.","c_root_id_A":"er6brx6","c_root_id_B":"er6cppd","created_at_utc_A":1560544212,"created_at_utc_B":1560544797,"score_A":5,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I mean...it would obviously never hold up in court. It's a clear violation of the law to designate a cartel as a terrorist organization given that they don't meet the definition (a definition you provided). Cartels have no political aims. They are economic organizations. Any political interference that they have is secondary, and aimed at improving their economic situation. A terrorist organization has specific political goals\/outcomes that it is seeking that are not merely means to other ends. Rather, a terrorist organization's political goals are their ends.","human_ref_B":">The definition of a terrorist is anyone who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims. What political aims, in regards to the US, are these cartel's pursuing? >If you take any cartel and put them side by side to any terrorist organization they would hit almost every benchmark of each other. While they may be similar, it's more about intent, hence my first question. Sure they're violent and can intimidate those who oppose them but their intent isn't political. >If the US really wanted to get serious about cartels they would label all known cartels as terrorists and you would approach them like we currently deal with terrorist organizations. Labeling then as such though, without merit, isn't going to get us anywhere. It would amount to a lie and have a pushback, local and internationally, if we tried to enter Mexico. >The only reason we won't is because it's too close to home and it turns into a real problem. I get it's not exactly ideal to drone strike operations in Central and South America, but you could open up so much more avenues for prosecution and such. The US entered Mexico all the time to fight against these cartel's. There's public record of it. We've just failed to stop it as when one goes down, others take their place. We've learned this lesson the hard way. >I'm not talking a \"war on drugs\" or starting a war with Mexico or other heavily controlled cartel countries, **but encountering these organizations in the US** would be more beneficial law enforcement wise than it is now. I'm not understanding what your conveying. As in bring them to the US? >atching an MS 13 subject now is a pat on the back, nice job; catching an ISIS member is national news. These cartels are doing the same thing just not to US troops which is the only reason nobody cares. People care. It's in the news all the time. But the US has fumbled it's war on drugs. We're in multiple combat zones. We're stretched as far as that goes. We're also, as a nation, starting to realize that drug problems are not a criminal issue but a mental health issue. >I have to assume the main argument is money. There's too much money to be made by having them run crazy still. Outside of that I haven't heard many realistic arguments. Please change my view. I am open to any argument to explain why they shouldn't be. The issue is more nuanced than just money. Here's the kicker, if we handled drugs as a mental health issue, these cartel's would lose their customers. They've already been hit hard from states legalizing cannabis. They're starting too move to other drugs due to it. But making drugs illegal is, at heart, the point we as a race need to address. It's been totally ineffective, a waste if money, time, and lives.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":585.0,"score_ratio":2.8} {"post_id":"c0osf3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: If the US wanted to get serious about the cartels we would label them as terrorist organizations and treat them as such. The definition of a terrorist is anyone who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims. If you take any cartel and put them side by side to any terrorist organization they would hit almost every benchmark of each other. If the US really wanted to get serious about cartels they would label all known cartels as terrorists and you would approach them like we currently deal with terrorist organizations. The only reason we won't is because it's too close to home and it turns into a real problem. I get it's not exactly ideal to drone strike operations in Central and South America, but you could open up so much more avenues for prosecution and such. I'm not talking a \"war on drugs\" or starting a war with Mexico or other heavily controlled cartel countries, but encountering these organizations in the US would be more beneficial law enforcement wise than it is now. Catching an MS 13 subject now is a pat on the back, nice job; catching an ISIS member is national news. These cartels are doing the same thing just not to US troops which is the only reason nobody cares. I have to assume the main argument is money. There's too much money to be made by having them run crazy still. Outside of that I haven't heard many realistic arguments. Please change my view. I am open to any argument to explain why they shouldn't be.","c_root_id_A":"er6cppd","c_root_id_B":"er6c3zc","created_at_utc_A":1560544797,"created_at_utc_B":1560544425,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">The definition of a terrorist is anyone who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims. What political aims, in regards to the US, are these cartel's pursuing? >If you take any cartel and put them side by side to any terrorist organization they would hit almost every benchmark of each other. While they may be similar, it's more about intent, hence my first question. Sure they're violent and can intimidate those who oppose them but their intent isn't political. >If the US really wanted to get serious about cartels they would label all known cartels as terrorists and you would approach them like we currently deal with terrorist organizations. Labeling then as such though, without merit, isn't going to get us anywhere. It would amount to a lie and have a pushback, local and internationally, if we tried to enter Mexico. >The only reason we won't is because it's too close to home and it turns into a real problem. I get it's not exactly ideal to drone strike operations in Central and South America, but you could open up so much more avenues for prosecution and such. The US entered Mexico all the time to fight against these cartel's. There's public record of it. We've just failed to stop it as when one goes down, others take their place. We've learned this lesson the hard way. >I'm not talking a \"war on drugs\" or starting a war with Mexico or other heavily controlled cartel countries, **but encountering these organizations in the US** would be more beneficial law enforcement wise than it is now. I'm not understanding what your conveying. As in bring them to the US? >atching an MS 13 subject now is a pat on the back, nice job; catching an ISIS member is national news. These cartels are doing the same thing just not to US troops which is the only reason nobody cares. People care. It's in the news all the time. But the US has fumbled it's war on drugs. We're in multiple combat zones. We're stretched as far as that goes. We're also, as a nation, starting to realize that drug problems are not a criminal issue but a mental health issue. >I have to assume the main argument is money. There's too much money to be made by having them run crazy still. Outside of that I haven't heard many realistic arguments. Please change my view. I am open to any argument to explain why they shouldn't be. The issue is more nuanced than just money. Here's the kicker, if we handled drugs as a mental health issue, these cartel's would lose their customers. They've already been hit hard from states legalizing cannabis. They're starting too move to other drugs due to it. But making drugs illegal is, at heart, the point we as a race need to address. It's been totally ineffective, a waste if money, time, and lives.","human_ref_B":"In addition to what \/u\/TuskaTheDaemonKilla said, cartels do not commit acts of unlawful violence or intimidation against random civilians, they only ever target people who are in their way for very specific reasons.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":372.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"ytjne3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: Vehicle (and maybe other similar) repossessions should be conducted in a more formal manner with a bank rep along with a legitimate towing person, and maybe a LEO present. This is something I started thinking about after a dear friend of mine was recently the victim of an errant repossession of his pickup truck that had already been paid off for more than a year. That's right, a clerical error by the bank resulted in a \"repo man\" being dispatched to my friend's home where they came and took off with said pickup in under a minute (gone in sixty seconds indeed.) We were both witness to the tow vehicle pulling away when we took notice of the unusual sounds coming from the front, unfenced, driveway. To add insult to injury, it took most of the week for him to get his truck released when someone at the bank was able to finally look at his papers proving the pickup was in fact fully owned by him and had been since mid 2021 (he originally started off making payments then was later able to pay of the rest all in one go after his financial situation drastically improved. He had never fallen behind on any payments, he just couldn't afford to buy it outright until later on.) So this got me thinking. Why exactly is it that banks use these hired guns (what I've learned after some research are effectively mercenaries) that operate in what is a rather legal grey area at times, rather then just sending a representative from the bank, with papers proving they have a right to take back the vehicle, accompanied by a legitimate towing service, and maybe a law enforcement officer if needed if trouble is feared (e.g., known bad neighborhood) ? I feel it would be a lot better due to: 1) The act of preparing papers of proof might flush out mistakes similar to what happened to my friend, where they realize that they were wrong (it is paid off already) and call off the repossession, 2) It will make it a lot clearer that a repossession is legitimate; there have been scams (e.g., fake repo-men stealing cars), that I have seen discussed when I did my research and some good videos on that in YouTube, 3 ) Having an official representative from the bank would allow the target to produce proof (something my friend was given NO opportunity to do) which could quickly show when the bank was in error, or, say, a payment was in fact sent (a copy could be shown, receipt from the post office, etc), and 4) It would still be possible to have that surprise-attack angle that I understand is sometimes replied on to make sure the more crazy\/pretty out there don't try to hide or intentionally cause damage to the vehicle. With my idea, it would just be a rep arriving with (perhaps *in*) a legitimate towing vehicle and maybe a police office, sheriff, etc. What it comes down to for me is, if the bank has the legal right already to reclaim what is really their property (it's not fully yours until it's paid off), then why not do it using straight forward way where there can be no rational confusion when paper work and also an official from the lender is present (with law enforcement as backup when needed.) Right now where there isn't even a chance to talk to anyone before the vehicle is just whisked away just feels like a broken system that should be moved away from.","c_root_id_A":"iw4iln6","c_root_id_B":"iw4iyco","created_at_utc_A":1668291270,"created_at_utc_B":1668291429,"score_A":16,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"As someone who was in the auto finance industry for 30 years, my thoughts. First of all, in all my years I can honestly say that I never saw a single example of a car repossessed in error. I'm not saying that it never happens but it's surely not a big enough problem to re-design the entire system. Second, banks are already losing between $7-8k per repossession. Adding lots of extra paperwork and hoops for the bank will drive those costs up even further and banks will simply tighten lending standards and people with borderline credit will end up not getting loans. The current system gives customer legal redress if there is an error as evidenced by your friend getting his truck back. Up until about 10 years ago it was illegal to repossess cars in Louisiana without jumping through a bunch of hoops. The consequence was that the biggest lenders, like Capital One, just refused to do business in the state. Be careful what you wish for.","human_ref_B":"To me this situation indicates a need for punishment when the bank screws up, and restitution towards the owner, but not the other stuff. The reason why they do it stealthily is that confrontations and violence are common if they don\u2019t.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":159.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"6a7a2t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: The Electoral College as it is currently organized fulfills neither of the purposes it arguably exists for, and it should be either reformed or done away with. The two most commonly cited reasons for the existence of the electoral college are 1) to serve as a buffer between the popular vote and the presidency, and 2) to allocate additional political power to smaller states. I believe that the way the electoral college is currently organized doesn't effectively accomplish either goal. For the goal of serving as a buffer, most states legally mandate that their electors vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Some electors can (and have) violated faithless elector laws and faced a variety of legal consequences for it, but those cases are few and far between. But the process of having electors at all diminishes the second goal of allocating extra electoral power to small states. Smaller states have more electoral votes per capita than larger ones, but fewer total electoral votes individually when compared to larger states. The power of their \"extra\" electoral votes lies in concentrating those votes, which is undermined by having electors that can behave faithlessly. If one California elector is faithless, the voting power of California as a bloc is diminished by less than 2%. If one Wyoming elector is faithless, Wyoming's voting power is diminished by a third. The crux of my view is that I believe that we ought to choose one mission for the electoral college, and set it up to succeed at that mission, or else do away with it entirely. If the mission of the electoral college is to provide a buffer to the popular vote, then we ought to do away with faithless elector laws and winner-take-all electoral voting. If a third of people in Wyoming vote for a Democratic candidate, then one of their electors should be chosen by state Democratic leaders; if two percent of Californians vote for a Libertarian, the Libertarians should get to choose one elector. And if these electors are absolutely free to vote their conscience, they can adequately serve as a buffer to an irresponsible popular vote. Alternatively, if the goal is to give small states extra electoral power, we should do away with the \"college\" element entirely. States should pass laws governing what happens to their apportioned electoral votes without any need to appoint electors or convene them to have a vote. If Wyoming is winner-take all, then a candidate with 51% of the vote their simply gets 3 electoral votes: no electors, and no chance for faithless electors. Why, given these options, should the electoral college remain in its current state? Please CMV. * One important note: I realize that politically, this change would be impossible to make in our current environment. My view is limited to what ought to be done, rather than the political path to actually doing it. So pointing out that this will never happen, while true, will not change my view on its own. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhcaw1q","c_root_id_B":"dhcvoqe","created_at_utc_A":1494357442,"created_at_utc_B":1494381859,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">But the process of having electors at all diminishes the second goal of allocating extra electoral power to small states. ...The power of their \"extra\" electoral votes lies in concentrating those votes, which is undermined by having electors that can behave faithlessly. I don't see why small state power is diminished by not voting as a coherent block. Small state interests are not necessarily more aligned among each other than large states, nor among the constituents within a state.","human_ref_B":"To me, the electoral college serves as a power-readjustment between urban populations and suburban\/rural populations. If you look at an electoral map, even in California, you find that urban centers go blue and everywhere else is generally red. The majority of people may live in urban centers, but I feel allowing businessmen in manhattan to control the entire state every electoral cycle isn't fair. But giving the minority inherent control based on being more spread out isn't fair either. The electoral college helps mitigate this problem by lumping the urban and rural areas together as one unit, but with the influential potency of everyone combined. This allows each state to gauge its population's needs and fight for their own majority. If a state has roughly equal proportions of urban and rural populations, then it will bounce back and forth between red and blue. Overall, this gives the country a balance of political power between the rich and the poor, the educated and uneducated, the religious and non-religious. The desired outcome wasn't for one demographic to dominate the country, but for the direction of the country to reverse often, keeping it on an aggregate middle path. We had 8 years of far left government, which half the country was upset about, and now we'll have a few years of right-leaning governance (in some regards), which half the country is upset about. The electoral college is doing its job.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24417.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"6a7a2t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: The Electoral College as it is currently organized fulfills neither of the purposes it arguably exists for, and it should be either reformed or done away with. The two most commonly cited reasons for the existence of the electoral college are 1) to serve as a buffer between the popular vote and the presidency, and 2) to allocate additional political power to smaller states. I believe that the way the electoral college is currently organized doesn't effectively accomplish either goal. For the goal of serving as a buffer, most states legally mandate that their electors vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Some electors can (and have) violated faithless elector laws and faced a variety of legal consequences for it, but those cases are few and far between. But the process of having electors at all diminishes the second goal of allocating extra electoral power to small states. Smaller states have more electoral votes per capita than larger ones, but fewer total electoral votes individually when compared to larger states. The power of their \"extra\" electoral votes lies in concentrating those votes, which is undermined by having electors that can behave faithlessly. If one California elector is faithless, the voting power of California as a bloc is diminished by less than 2%. If one Wyoming elector is faithless, Wyoming's voting power is diminished by a third. The crux of my view is that I believe that we ought to choose one mission for the electoral college, and set it up to succeed at that mission, or else do away with it entirely. If the mission of the electoral college is to provide a buffer to the popular vote, then we ought to do away with faithless elector laws and winner-take-all electoral voting. If a third of people in Wyoming vote for a Democratic candidate, then one of their electors should be chosen by state Democratic leaders; if two percent of Californians vote for a Libertarian, the Libertarians should get to choose one elector. And if these electors are absolutely free to vote their conscience, they can adequately serve as a buffer to an irresponsible popular vote. Alternatively, if the goal is to give small states extra electoral power, we should do away with the \"college\" element entirely. States should pass laws governing what happens to their apportioned electoral votes without any need to appoint electors or convene them to have a vote. If Wyoming is winner-take all, then a candidate with 51% of the vote their simply gets 3 electoral votes: no electors, and no chance for faithless electors. Why, given these options, should the electoral college remain in its current state? Please CMV. * One important note: I realize that politically, this change would be impossible to make in our current environment. My view is limited to what ought to be done, rather than the political path to actually doing it. So pointing out that this will never happen, while true, will not change my view on its own. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhca5r2","c_root_id_B":"dhcvoqe","created_at_utc_A":1494356644,"created_at_utc_B":1494381859,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">The crux of my view is that I believe that we ought to choose one mission for the electoral college, and set it up to succeed at that mission, or else do away with it entirely. The \"mission\" for the electoral college is to allow the *States* to choose their representative(the President). The people vote for their representatives through the House of Representatives(Congress, Senate) while the *States* vote for their representative through the electoral college. The entire reason the system exists is so that individual states can decide which representative they would like leading the union of states.","human_ref_B":"To me, the electoral college serves as a power-readjustment between urban populations and suburban\/rural populations. If you look at an electoral map, even in California, you find that urban centers go blue and everywhere else is generally red. The majority of people may live in urban centers, but I feel allowing businessmen in manhattan to control the entire state every electoral cycle isn't fair. But giving the minority inherent control based on being more spread out isn't fair either. The electoral college helps mitigate this problem by lumping the urban and rural areas together as one unit, but with the influential potency of everyone combined. This allows each state to gauge its population's needs and fight for their own majority. If a state has roughly equal proportions of urban and rural populations, then it will bounce back and forth between red and blue. Overall, this gives the country a balance of political power between the rich and the poor, the educated and uneducated, the religious and non-religious. The desired outcome wasn't for one demographic to dominate the country, but for the direction of the country to reverse often, keeping it on an aggregate middle path. We had 8 years of far left government, which half the country was upset about, and now we'll have a few years of right-leaning governance (in some regards), which half the country is upset about. The electoral college is doing its job.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25215.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"6a7a2t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: The Electoral College as it is currently organized fulfills neither of the purposes it arguably exists for, and it should be either reformed or done away with. The two most commonly cited reasons for the existence of the electoral college are 1) to serve as a buffer between the popular vote and the presidency, and 2) to allocate additional political power to smaller states. I believe that the way the electoral college is currently organized doesn't effectively accomplish either goal. For the goal of serving as a buffer, most states legally mandate that their electors vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Some electors can (and have) violated faithless elector laws and faced a variety of legal consequences for it, but those cases are few and far between. But the process of having electors at all diminishes the second goal of allocating extra electoral power to small states. Smaller states have more electoral votes per capita than larger ones, but fewer total electoral votes individually when compared to larger states. The power of their \"extra\" electoral votes lies in concentrating those votes, which is undermined by having electors that can behave faithlessly. If one California elector is faithless, the voting power of California as a bloc is diminished by less than 2%. If one Wyoming elector is faithless, Wyoming's voting power is diminished by a third. The crux of my view is that I believe that we ought to choose one mission for the electoral college, and set it up to succeed at that mission, or else do away with it entirely. If the mission of the electoral college is to provide a buffer to the popular vote, then we ought to do away with faithless elector laws and winner-take-all electoral voting. If a third of people in Wyoming vote for a Democratic candidate, then one of their electors should be chosen by state Democratic leaders; if two percent of Californians vote for a Libertarian, the Libertarians should get to choose one elector. And if these electors are absolutely free to vote their conscience, they can adequately serve as a buffer to an irresponsible popular vote. Alternatively, if the goal is to give small states extra electoral power, we should do away with the \"college\" element entirely. States should pass laws governing what happens to their apportioned electoral votes without any need to appoint electors or convene them to have a vote. If Wyoming is winner-take all, then a candidate with 51% of the vote their simply gets 3 electoral votes: no electors, and no chance for faithless electors. Why, given these options, should the electoral college remain in its current state? Please CMV. * One important note: I realize that politically, this change would be impossible to make in our current environment. My view is limited to what ought to be done, rather than the political path to actually doing it. So pointing out that this will never happen, while true, will not change my view on its own. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhcaw1q","c_root_id_B":"dhdl6l9","created_at_utc_A":1494357442,"created_at_utc_B":1494429177,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">But the process of having electors at all diminishes the second goal of allocating extra electoral power to small states. ...The power of their \"extra\" electoral votes lies in concentrating those votes, which is undermined by having electors that can behave faithlessly. I don't see why small state power is diminished by not voting as a coherent block. Small state interests are not necessarily more aligned among each other than large states, nor among the constituents within a state.","human_ref_B":"> I believe that we ought to choose one mission for the electoral college, and set it up to succeed at that mission It has one. It's mission is to balance vote by population and vote by region (state). If there were a purely popular vote, then the most populous regions decide the President and therefore the policies that govern, and thereby focus on the policies that are important to the populous regions at the expense of the interests of the less populous regions. There is then an incentive for the less populous regions to leave the union and elect their own leader who represents their interests. A purely regional vote, i.e, equal weight by state gives the individuals in smaller states proportionately more power (per person) to chose the President than the more popular states, and so a disproportionate amount of effort focuses on policies that affect few people at the expense of the needs of many people. More populous states would then have incentive to leave the union to elect their own leader who represents the interests of their population. In theory this could be mitigated by redefining states to fluidly change boundaries such that each state represents the same population. But even that wouldn't quite work because population isn't the only issue: geography matters as well because that affects living conditions and issues such as climate, roads, power generation, local resources, basis for economy, and so on. The Electoral College *isn't* meant to solve either issue, so demonstration that it doesn't solve either problem has no bearing on whether it is a good system or not. It is designed as a *balance* of issues so will be an imperfect compromise. The important thing to note is that this is true of *any* proposed system. There can't be a perfect system that solves all issues. Rather than simply criticize one system, you need to compare the costs and benefits of different proposed systems, and to do that you need to start out with the list of issues that need to be addressed, like those I've identified above. (And, essentially, those discussed in the founding papers, particularly Federalist #10 in this case.) That doesn't mean the current system is the best possible one. But you need to do the cost-benefit analysis of any proposal. You identified one of the problems, that of \"winner-takes-all\". This is a problem, for sure, and it's one of discretizing votes and at what resolution. Only Maine and Nebraska don't have winner-takes-all, but they effectively do since Maine is almost always fully Democrat and Nebraska almost always Republican. And they have so few Electoral votes that they don't change much anyway. The compromise of the regional and popular vote is addressed by the Electoral College by giving Electoral Votes based on each principle which is already addressed in Congress. The House of Representatives is one built by having a number of seats proportional to population. The bigger a population, the more seats a state gets, which we'll call P. The Senate is built by having a number of seats per state, which we'll call S, and is two seats each. So each state has P+S seats total over the two houses of Congress. That balances the two issues equally, meaning Senate address the regional issue and the House of Reps addresses the population issue. For electing a President, each state also gets P+S Electoral votes, which again balances these issues. Fine so far. But, each electoral vote discretizes the votes below it. Imagine if you will the idea that each Electoral Vote is up for grabs based on voters voting for how each individual electoral vote should be cast. In that case, the Electoral vote erases the distribution of votes that generated it. There is no difference in outcome if 100% of votes for that Electoral Vote are for one candidate, 51% to 49% split between two, 33-33-34% split between three candidates, and so on. That information is lost. This is somewhat the circumstances in Maine and Nebraska where the 'P' Electoral Votes are assigned based on the Congressional districts, so are up for grabs in exactly this way, but the 'S' Electoral Votes are assigned by winner-takes-all. But every other state is much worse at discretizing. They don't just discretize *each* Electoral Vote, they discretize *all* of their Electoral Votes at the resolution of N = P+S. That's a coarser resolution, so small changes in proportions of votes can make huge changes in outcome. This is the problem with discretizing based on threshold, and creates a highly sensitive and non-linear system. An arguably *better* system would maintain as much resolution as possible. That is, if each state took their N = P+S Electoral Votes and assigned *all* of them based on proportionality to the nearest integer, that would be more representative. So, for instance, if a state has 29 Electoral Votes, and the voters are 49% for Candidate A and 51% or Candidate B, that is 0.49*29 = 14.21 Electoral Votes for A and 0.51*29 = 14.79 Electoral Votes for B, resulting in 14 for A and 15 for B. That would be a better system from a mathematical point of view. But, there's a problem. How Electoral Votes are decided is up to each state. Reforming in that way would be difficult and require convincing each state. And, it would be very hard to do for the partisan states. Partisan states always elect the same party to state governance over and over. Even if it's 60% Party A and 40% Party B every election, Party A always wins the state. Now that party has a self-interest. If they put in a proportional systems like I describe above, then 60% of their Electoral Votes for President will go for their own party's representative (Party A) and 40% will go for Party B. If they keep winner-takes-all, 100% of the Electoral Votes go to Party A. It's in their own party's interest, as re-occurring state governance, to keep the winner-takes-all system. The only real solution is to force it upon states from the national level. But that would require a Constitutional change, and doing that would require convincing the states, and as we just discussed, they have no interest in that. So it'll be very hard to make such a change. Yes, it should happen, but it's highly unlikely. The same problem exists with any proposed system reform, of course. But you recognize that. So my argument then is that what *ought to be done*, as you suggest, is exactly the proportional assignment of Electoral Votes I've identified above, but keep the Electoral College because it addresses issues and keeps the union from fracturing. Unless of course you want the union to fracture and split, in which case a purely popular vote will probably do that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":71735.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"6a7a2t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: The Electoral College as it is currently organized fulfills neither of the purposes it arguably exists for, and it should be either reformed or done away with. The two most commonly cited reasons for the existence of the electoral college are 1) to serve as a buffer between the popular vote and the presidency, and 2) to allocate additional political power to smaller states. I believe that the way the electoral college is currently organized doesn't effectively accomplish either goal. For the goal of serving as a buffer, most states legally mandate that their electors vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Some electors can (and have) violated faithless elector laws and faced a variety of legal consequences for it, but those cases are few and far between. But the process of having electors at all diminishes the second goal of allocating extra electoral power to small states. Smaller states have more electoral votes per capita than larger ones, but fewer total electoral votes individually when compared to larger states. The power of their \"extra\" electoral votes lies in concentrating those votes, which is undermined by having electors that can behave faithlessly. If one California elector is faithless, the voting power of California as a bloc is diminished by less than 2%. If one Wyoming elector is faithless, Wyoming's voting power is diminished by a third. The crux of my view is that I believe that we ought to choose one mission for the electoral college, and set it up to succeed at that mission, or else do away with it entirely. If the mission of the electoral college is to provide a buffer to the popular vote, then we ought to do away with faithless elector laws and winner-take-all electoral voting. If a third of people in Wyoming vote for a Democratic candidate, then one of their electors should be chosen by state Democratic leaders; if two percent of Californians vote for a Libertarian, the Libertarians should get to choose one elector. And if these electors are absolutely free to vote their conscience, they can adequately serve as a buffer to an irresponsible popular vote. Alternatively, if the goal is to give small states extra electoral power, we should do away with the \"college\" element entirely. States should pass laws governing what happens to their apportioned electoral votes without any need to appoint electors or convene them to have a vote. If Wyoming is winner-take all, then a candidate with 51% of the vote their simply gets 3 electoral votes: no electors, and no chance for faithless electors. Why, given these options, should the electoral college remain in its current state? Please CMV. * One important note: I realize that politically, this change would be impossible to make in our current environment. My view is limited to what ought to be done, rather than the political path to actually doing it. So pointing out that this will never happen, while true, will not change my view on its own. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dhdl6l9","c_root_id_B":"dhca5r2","created_at_utc_A":1494429177,"created_at_utc_B":1494356644,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> I believe that we ought to choose one mission for the electoral college, and set it up to succeed at that mission It has one. It's mission is to balance vote by population and vote by region (state). If there were a purely popular vote, then the most populous regions decide the President and therefore the policies that govern, and thereby focus on the policies that are important to the populous regions at the expense of the interests of the less populous regions. There is then an incentive for the less populous regions to leave the union and elect their own leader who represents their interests. A purely regional vote, i.e, equal weight by state gives the individuals in smaller states proportionately more power (per person) to chose the President than the more popular states, and so a disproportionate amount of effort focuses on policies that affect few people at the expense of the needs of many people. More populous states would then have incentive to leave the union to elect their own leader who represents the interests of their population. In theory this could be mitigated by redefining states to fluidly change boundaries such that each state represents the same population. But even that wouldn't quite work because population isn't the only issue: geography matters as well because that affects living conditions and issues such as climate, roads, power generation, local resources, basis for economy, and so on. The Electoral College *isn't* meant to solve either issue, so demonstration that it doesn't solve either problem has no bearing on whether it is a good system or not. It is designed as a *balance* of issues so will be an imperfect compromise. The important thing to note is that this is true of *any* proposed system. There can't be a perfect system that solves all issues. Rather than simply criticize one system, you need to compare the costs and benefits of different proposed systems, and to do that you need to start out with the list of issues that need to be addressed, like those I've identified above. (And, essentially, those discussed in the founding papers, particularly Federalist #10 in this case.) That doesn't mean the current system is the best possible one. But you need to do the cost-benefit analysis of any proposal. You identified one of the problems, that of \"winner-takes-all\". This is a problem, for sure, and it's one of discretizing votes and at what resolution. Only Maine and Nebraska don't have winner-takes-all, but they effectively do since Maine is almost always fully Democrat and Nebraska almost always Republican. And they have so few Electoral votes that they don't change much anyway. The compromise of the regional and popular vote is addressed by the Electoral College by giving Electoral Votes based on each principle which is already addressed in Congress. The House of Representatives is one built by having a number of seats proportional to population. The bigger a population, the more seats a state gets, which we'll call P. The Senate is built by having a number of seats per state, which we'll call S, and is two seats each. So each state has P+S seats total over the two houses of Congress. That balances the two issues equally, meaning Senate address the regional issue and the House of Reps addresses the population issue. For electing a President, each state also gets P+S Electoral votes, which again balances these issues. Fine so far. But, each electoral vote discretizes the votes below it. Imagine if you will the idea that each Electoral Vote is up for grabs based on voters voting for how each individual electoral vote should be cast. In that case, the Electoral vote erases the distribution of votes that generated it. There is no difference in outcome if 100% of votes for that Electoral Vote are for one candidate, 51% to 49% split between two, 33-33-34% split between three candidates, and so on. That information is lost. This is somewhat the circumstances in Maine and Nebraska where the 'P' Electoral Votes are assigned based on the Congressional districts, so are up for grabs in exactly this way, but the 'S' Electoral Votes are assigned by winner-takes-all. But every other state is much worse at discretizing. They don't just discretize *each* Electoral Vote, they discretize *all* of their Electoral Votes at the resolution of N = P+S. That's a coarser resolution, so small changes in proportions of votes can make huge changes in outcome. This is the problem with discretizing based on threshold, and creates a highly sensitive and non-linear system. An arguably *better* system would maintain as much resolution as possible. That is, if each state took their N = P+S Electoral Votes and assigned *all* of them based on proportionality to the nearest integer, that would be more representative. So, for instance, if a state has 29 Electoral Votes, and the voters are 49% for Candidate A and 51% or Candidate B, that is 0.49*29 = 14.21 Electoral Votes for A and 0.51*29 = 14.79 Electoral Votes for B, resulting in 14 for A and 15 for B. That would be a better system from a mathematical point of view. But, there's a problem. How Electoral Votes are decided is up to each state. Reforming in that way would be difficult and require convincing each state. And, it would be very hard to do for the partisan states. Partisan states always elect the same party to state governance over and over. Even if it's 60% Party A and 40% Party B every election, Party A always wins the state. Now that party has a self-interest. If they put in a proportional systems like I describe above, then 60% of their Electoral Votes for President will go for their own party's representative (Party A) and 40% will go for Party B. If they keep winner-takes-all, 100% of the Electoral Votes go to Party A. It's in their own party's interest, as re-occurring state governance, to keep the winner-takes-all system. The only real solution is to force it upon states from the national level. But that would require a Constitutional change, and doing that would require convincing the states, and as we just discussed, they have no interest in that. So it'll be very hard to make such a change. Yes, it should happen, but it's highly unlikely. The same problem exists with any proposed system reform, of course. But you recognize that. So my argument then is that what *ought to be done*, as you suggest, is exactly the proportional assignment of Electoral Votes I've identified above, but keep the Electoral College because it addresses issues and keeps the union from fracturing. Unless of course you want the union to fracture and split, in which case a purely popular vote will probably do that.","human_ref_B":">The crux of my view is that I believe that we ought to choose one mission for the electoral college, and set it up to succeed at that mission, or else do away with it entirely. The \"mission\" for the electoral college is to allow the *States* to choose their representative(the President). The people vote for their representatives through the House of Representatives(Congress, Senate) while the *States* vote for their representative through the electoral college. The entire reason the system exists is so that individual states can decide which representative they would like leading the union of states.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":72533.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"kwlkej","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: There is no reason the USA shouldn't eliminate the electoral college I have no idea how anyone can believe that the electoral college is better in any way than a direct democracy. Originally, attempting a direct democracy would've been an incredible pain in the ass, so the EC was a compromise. That being said, it was literally designed to be as easy to rig as possible. Right now a mere 23% of the popular vote would win you the electoral college. It would be nigh impossible to pull that off given the very specific places and votes, but still... What this boils down to is unequal power per vote, something I consider untenable within a supposedly democratic system. I have only ever heard a couple arguments at all, and none that are good. * It is harder to rig than a direct democracy. * ??? My response: no. * The electoral college prevents dictatorship of the majority. * I mean... kinda? But is that not (to some extent) the purpose of a democracy: majority rule, minority protection. * This is a republic not a democracy! * Yes, that's why we have congress, so that not everyone has to spend years learning the million different facets of legal minutiae. For something that affects every person in the country equally, each vote should therefore be equal. If a state votes in a new senator, that may affect the country at large, but not nearly as much as it would their constituents. Also, tradition is really not a valid argument, we can change the systems, they were made to be changeable - albeit slowly - so as to prevent a reenactment of history. I may just be a young socialist who is fuck-all pissed about the current state of affairs in the US, but I'd love a good debate right about now. If someone wants to have a more legit debate, I'd love to actually argue with our voices on discord. All dissent is welcomed :)","c_root_id_A":"gj4urnk","c_root_id_B":"gj4zauk","created_at_utc_A":1610560268,"created_at_utc_B":1610562261,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Just for the sake of argument. If the tables were flipped and your party was the minority party, would you still support this?","human_ref_B":"\" That being said, it was literally designed to be as easy to rig as possible. \" What is your basis for this claim? Is there something in the Federalist Papers or the debate at the Constitutional Convention that indicates \"ease of rigging\" was part of the goals for its design?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1993.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"kwlkej","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: There is no reason the USA shouldn't eliminate the electoral college I have no idea how anyone can believe that the electoral college is better in any way than a direct democracy. Originally, attempting a direct democracy would've been an incredible pain in the ass, so the EC was a compromise. That being said, it was literally designed to be as easy to rig as possible. Right now a mere 23% of the popular vote would win you the electoral college. It would be nigh impossible to pull that off given the very specific places and votes, but still... What this boils down to is unequal power per vote, something I consider untenable within a supposedly democratic system. I have only ever heard a couple arguments at all, and none that are good. * It is harder to rig than a direct democracy. * ??? My response: no. * The electoral college prevents dictatorship of the majority. * I mean... kinda? But is that not (to some extent) the purpose of a democracy: majority rule, minority protection. * This is a republic not a democracy! * Yes, that's why we have congress, so that not everyone has to spend years learning the million different facets of legal minutiae. For something that affects every person in the country equally, each vote should therefore be equal. If a state votes in a new senator, that may affect the country at large, but not nearly as much as it would their constituents. Also, tradition is really not a valid argument, we can change the systems, they were made to be changeable - albeit slowly - so as to prevent a reenactment of history. I may just be a young socialist who is fuck-all pissed about the current state of affairs in the US, but I'd love a good debate right about now. If someone wants to have a more legit debate, I'd love to actually argue with our voices on discord. All dissent is welcomed :)","c_root_id_A":"gj4w3vg","c_root_id_B":"gj4urnk","created_at_utc_A":1610560847,"created_at_utc_B":1610560268,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"One side effect of eliminating the EC is that the campaign focus (and money) will shift dramatically to the biggest population centers in the US and away from \"flyover\" states. The county I live in has more people in it than the population of **25 states**. Whether this a good or a bad thing I can't say, but it's definitely something to be considered when making this argument.","human_ref_B":"Just for the sake of argument. If the tables were flipped and your party was the minority party, would you still support this?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":579.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"e8ch6l","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV We shouldn't celebrate or condemn people but rather their individual acts I've been battling with a thought in my head recently and wasn't entirely sure what it was about but I think I've managed to articulate it a little. So we have a real problem in today's political\/celebrity\/public eye landscape where people take on certain personas and identities and that's how people perceive them. For as long as I can remember I've always had a problem with whitewashing or outright condemning people for certain acts. How quickly are good acts forgotten when we find out that they did something bad and vice-versa. The main example I can think of is Winston Churchill. He's lionised in the UK for being our 'greatest PM ever' for his leadership in WW2. Now his acts during that time are definitely 100% worth celebrating to the ends of the Earth. What's not worth celebrating are his racist and imperialist views. Not to mention he's responsible for the deaths of 3 million Indians. So when I hear people tout him as this exemplary person I get a little uncomfortable. I might inform them about his other acts but I just get told I'm a traitor, Hitler sympathiser or whatever else. The same can be said on the reverse. They are people who have a done a lot of good but get condemned for acts of that are deemed unsavoury. Now I didn't grow up in the US but I've seen people on Reddit wax lyrical about how important Bill Cosby was to their childhood. Now the crimes of which he has committed deserve the punishment he received and then some and with that erased 40-50 years worth of entertaining a nation. Don't get me wrong his criminal acts were awful but are we right as a society to vapourise that broadcasting history? In an ideal world we wouldn't idiolise and lionise people but rather inidividual acts. But with things like identity politics and the Twitter army that gets harder and harder to do. It seems mad to say things like, \"This is an excellent song, shame we can't listen to it because of their criminal acts\" or \"He got us through a world war but let's not forget his key role in a genocide\". Humans by definition are walking contradictions. Morals are not black and white, especially when reviewed within the context of their time. Even universal praise or condemnation can't hide the deeds from the same person that are on the opposite side of the moral spectrum. I wouldn't want Cosby anywhere near my TV screen and if I worked at network I wouldn't touch his broadcast history with a barge pole. I'd probably also disagree with statues of the likes of Churchill. So my view is that rather than saying, \"Churchill is the greatest Brit that's ever lived\", it should be \"Churchill's leadership in WW2 saved us\". If we're talking about Cosby it should be, are we talking about his sexual assaults or his credentials as an entertainer? Rather than whitewashing the good and vapourising the bad to the point where everyone's put in a good and evil camp.","c_root_id_A":"faaqb55","c_root_id_B":"faao3yl","created_at_utc_A":1575912149,"created_at_utc_B":1575911353,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"With the exception of Churchill (and then only among Brits), I cannot really think of much whitewashing. People are almost always defined by their worst single deed. You are, who you are at your worst. For better or worse, this is a reflection of the legal system. Whether you donate to charity, whether you are a good father, whether you are a good friend, doesn't negate the fact that you are a thief, rapist or murderer. These single acts can come to completely dominate the rest of your life (prison). Good just isn't heavily valued. Once someone does the worst of the worst, the legal system tends to respond to that, and so do we as a society.","human_ref_B":"If you take away our ability to tell stories about people \u2014 narratives, likely embellished, about what people mean to us \u2014 then how will we communicate our values to each other? Don\u2019t you think it would be difficult to show others what your values are if you are never able to point to other people as examples? Pointing to *actions* as examples doesn\u2019t show what you value \u2014 pointing to *intentions* might, but that\u2019s what telling stories about people is all about: their perceived intentions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":796.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipw2yai","c_root_id_B":"ipw36qj","created_at_utc_A":1664140431,"created_at_utc_B":1664140529,"score_A":45,"score_B":195,"human_ref_A":"You aren\u2019t British, are you?","human_ref_B":">First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. Not really. Their wealth is mostly tied to land deeds, due to times of various civil unrest and negotiation with landed gentry; their legacy is built upon an ability to produce heirs and not be overthrown. They are a social class to their own but not necessarily classist; and there is no relation to racism in your assumption. >The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are already the monarchy, I am not sure how more encouraged you expect them to be. >They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Morally, no, but they are the centre mechanism of the function of State for fifteen nations; which makes them far more politically important than most anyone. >Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. I mean, they contribute a significant amount more than they cost so that is fundamentally incorrect. The reason the UK tourism industry surrounding monarchic history is so profitable is the continued existence of the monarchy. People come for the pomp and circumstance. Considering Britain and the world as a whole has also profitted from slavery for millennia, I am not sure why it is of particular concern that the monarchy was involved. And the estimates of the State Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II are around the ten million pound mark, so off by a a factor of 100. So it sounds like a lot of concerns about a fictional world. >Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. Once you are a part of the royal family, you are forfeiting such \"rights\". Sure she can legally say something, but the idea she should not be criticised for her actions is ridiculous. They are the symbol of the State, they are no longer private citizens nor should they hold public opinion or \"air dirty laundry\". This was the same reason why Princess Diana was so ostracised, a fundamental misunderstanding of the duties and expectations of the monarchy. >The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. She married into the Royal family without any understanding of the role expected of her. She was criticised because it was an inappropriate manner to air her concerns and drag the State into a private affair. By the fact the royals are the living embodiment of the State, it sullies the reputation of the UK. >Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. They deserve credit for shirking responsibility? They were cut from the royal finances because they refused their royal duties. They didn't make the choice through their own altruism. And must I repeat, the taxpayer profits from the Crown, not the other way around. Not only that, but they sponsor hundreds of charities around the world; and are a net positive for the diplomatic relations of the Commonwealth Realms. Nothing you stated insinuates that they are racist or outdated.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":98.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwb687","c_root_id_B":"ipwdku1","created_at_utc_A":1664143911,"created_at_utc_B":1664144973,"score_A":42,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":">Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. Sure. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. Sure. >The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. Hardly. I\u2019m a republican not a monarchist and while I wouldn\u2019t say I cared enough to be angry , I think people are angry because they think that she ( and obviously Harry) are also incredibly privileged people ( having ditched the duty but that could be said to go with it) whose main claim to fame is \u2018celebrity\u2019 and that she is basically making up stuff or exaggerating in order to get attention. >They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. >What would change my mind? >If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get. I don\u2019t think we need them. I don\u2019t like the idea of valuing people just for who they are or placing exaggerated fantasies and deference on them when we really know little about them. There is the argument, which I\u2019m not entirely convinced of, that you need an independent head of state and one that isn\u2019t subject to the short termism of buying election favour. In general my dispute with you is that I just think that Harry and Meghan are no better. Worse in some ways because for the most part, part of the job is at least keeping quiet and not whining about me, me, me while touting for income. But the only benefit i might consider is that I can see the value in having traditions that might give a nation a sense of shared identity and experience if it brings us together .. like the jubilee stuff or funeral stuff recently, if they actually do that.","human_ref_B":">I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. The simplest way to explain this is that great societies are things passed down; nations where men plant trees under whose shade they shall never sit. Much of the United Kingdom's formal proceedings are hilariously archaic when viewed from a coldly analytical standpoint, but every tradition carries with it a meaning. The costumes, the icons, the means by which certain actions are taken, the specific words used, all of it is inherited from those who came before, and carried forward for those yet unborn. It is a perpetual reminder that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, and that it is something that belongs to all of us - and those yet to be. We have done these things for hundreds of years, passed down these symbols for centuries, as a way to remind ourselves that we must preserve them, and thus preserve the nation, for the future. The Royal Family is a central facet of this notion of duty. >First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone Wrong. Flat out, objectively, wrong. Their \"wealth\" is built upon a series of decisions, transactions, investments, conquests and, on occasion, pathetic grovelling that stretches back beyond time immemorial - that's a fancy way of saying \"so long ago we had to give up tracking who owned what, and just arbitrarily pick a date before which nobody could argue ownership anymore\". It's around the 1100s, if memory serves. For the record, the Royal family went broke a long time ago. The only reason they were allowed to keep all their nice things is Parliament bailed them out in exchange for never having to pay rent on any of the land the Royals owned - which, being royalty, was a LOT of land! This technically only applied to the monarch who went broke, but *every single one* after that agreed to maintain the arrangement. You can watch the formal ascension of Charles III on YouTube and see him confirm this. > which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. Being successful is not racist. Hating people for their skin colour is racist. >Historically they have profited from the black slave trade *Everyone* profited off the slave trade. Except the slaves. Most of the wealthiest African (aka: BLACK) nations became so because of Slavery. This is why Woman King is so controversial - they took one of the most evil groups of (Black) people on Earth, and tried to paint them as noble people fighting against slavery, when in fact they were the ones enslaving people. Europeans didn't enslave Africans - they turned up at pre-existing slave markets. >and continue to leech off of taxpayers See my earlier comment - the total value of the Royal lands in rent alone is generally assumed to be 4x what the royal grant is. As such, they *save* the taxpayer money. Also, they can't be taxed because they aren't subject to Parliamentary rulings - they are the body that gives Parliament legitimacy. >despite contributing very little to society nowadays The Royals do a great deal for this country; they have served in active warzones, for one. The Monarch also acts as an important political fallback - if our Prime Minister were to fall out with a foreign leader, the Monarch can step in to maintain ties. This is more or less what has happened on a few occasions. They also do a lot of charity work and try to help various good causes. >What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get. There is a simple statement that I have found has, thus far, utterly scuppered every single Republican in the UK: upon their ranting at how useless the monarchy is, I simply ask them \"so you want \\[current Prime Minister\\] to be President of the United Kingdom?\" The answer has *always* been \"no.\" No Republican I have ever spoken to has ever wanted our sitting Prime Minister to be the absolute power in our nation This is telling, because I think most people (even if they won't admit it) recognise why direct Democratic rule does not work - Democracy encourages short-term thinking and outright lying. Absolute power is only available in short bursts, and so to hold onto power you must constantly focus on the next election cycle. Thus, Politicians are incapable of thinking more than 2-5 years ahead at a time. The Royal Family does not need to concern itself with short-term politicking. They have their own concerns, naturally, but they don't have to do whatever is current-year relevant to cling to the crown. Here is a prime example: Brexit. This only happened because David Cameron was concerned that UKIP was growing in popularity in the polls, and so he had to take a huge gamble to try and shut down the anti-EU movement in his own party, and British politics in general. This was a decision made for short-term gain. It backfired on him spectacularly; whether you personally think it was right to Leave or Remain, it is obvious that the majority of UK politicians did not want Leave to win, did not expect Leave to win, and when Leave won they were utterly lost as to what to do. This is the kind of thing that, frankly, should *not* be done by the head of a nation. But we see it come from Democratic Republics all the time. The Monarchy does not engage in this sort of thing. They wield nigh unassailable power, with the ability to enact changes to our nation without the need to worry about public approval. They rarely do this - most monarchs that do, do so only once. Queen Victoria, for example, forbade the then-serving Prime Minister from forming a government upon taking the throne, as she (rightly) considered him a manipulative bastard who thought he could rule through her, rather than serve the nation at her behest. In this fashion, the Monarchy becomes a check-and-balance against Parliament. Parliament, and all agents of government, are only valid if the Crown declares it so. They are a perpetual sword of Damocles over our government, and they have been dropped before. As for worship... the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, the one true faith, and thus the most important religious figure on Earth. Through His Majesty is the will of God enacted. Some foreign weirdos make similar claims, but they're obviously wrong because everyone knows God is English. I'm obviously being somewhat facetious here, but the Monarch is the head of our national religion, and so if you adhere to the Anglican faith it makes perfect sense why you might worship them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1062.0,"score_ratio":2.4047619048} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipw2yai","c_root_id_B":"ipwdku1","created_at_utc_A":1664140431,"created_at_utc_B":1664144973,"score_A":45,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":"You aren\u2019t British, are you?","human_ref_B":">I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. The simplest way to explain this is that great societies are things passed down; nations where men plant trees under whose shade they shall never sit. Much of the United Kingdom's formal proceedings are hilariously archaic when viewed from a coldly analytical standpoint, but every tradition carries with it a meaning. The costumes, the icons, the means by which certain actions are taken, the specific words used, all of it is inherited from those who came before, and carried forward for those yet unborn. It is a perpetual reminder that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, and that it is something that belongs to all of us - and those yet to be. We have done these things for hundreds of years, passed down these symbols for centuries, as a way to remind ourselves that we must preserve them, and thus preserve the nation, for the future. The Royal Family is a central facet of this notion of duty. >First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone Wrong. Flat out, objectively, wrong. Their \"wealth\" is built upon a series of decisions, transactions, investments, conquests and, on occasion, pathetic grovelling that stretches back beyond time immemorial - that's a fancy way of saying \"so long ago we had to give up tracking who owned what, and just arbitrarily pick a date before which nobody could argue ownership anymore\". It's around the 1100s, if memory serves. For the record, the Royal family went broke a long time ago. The only reason they were allowed to keep all their nice things is Parliament bailed them out in exchange for never having to pay rent on any of the land the Royals owned - which, being royalty, was a LOT of land! This technically only applied to the monarch who went broke, but *every single one* after that agreed to maintain the arrangement. You can watch the formal ascension of Charles III on YouTube and see him confirm this. > which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. Being successful is not racist. Hating people for their skin colour is racist. >Historically they have profited from the black slave trade *Everyone* profited off the slave trade. Except the slaves. Most of the wealthiest African (aka: BLACK) nations became so because of Slavery. This is why Woman King is so controversial - they took one of the most evil groups of (Black) people on Earth, and tried to paint them as noble people fighting against slavery, when in fact they were the ones enslaving people. Europeans didn't enslave Africans - they turned up at pre-existing slave markets. >and continue to leech off of taxpayers See my earlier comment - the total value of the Royal lands in rent alone is generally assumed to be 4x what the royal grant is. As such, they *save* the taxpayer money. Also, they can't be taxed because they aren't subject to Parliamentary rulings - they are the body that gives Parliament legitimacy. >despite contributing very little to society nowadays The Royals do a great deal for this country; they have served in active warzones, for one. The Monarch also acts as an important political fallback - if our Prime Minister were to fall out with a foreign leader, the Monarch can step in to maintain ties. This is more or less what has happened on a few occasions. They also do a lot of charity work and try to help various good causes. >What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get. There is a simple statement that I have found has, thus far, utterly scuppered every single Republican in the UK: upon their ranting at how useless the monarchy is, I simply ask them \"so you want \\[current Prime Minister\\] to be President of the United Kingdom?\" The answer has *always* been \"no.\" No Republican I have ever spoken to has ever wanted our sitting Prime Minister to be the absolute power in our nation This is telling, because I think most people (even if they won't admit it) recognise why direct Democratic rule does not work - Democracy encourages short-term thinking and outright lying. Absolute power is only available in short bursts, and so to hold onto power you must constantly focus on the next election cycle. Thus, Politicians are incapable of thinking more than 2-5 years ahead at a time. The Royal Family does not need to concern itself with short-term politicking. They have their own concerns, naturally, but they don't have to do whatever is current-year relevant to cling to the crown. Here is a prime example: Brexit. This only happened because David Cameron was concerned that UKIP was growing in popularity in the polls, and so he had to take a huge gamble to try and shut down the anti-EU movement in his own party, and British politics in general. This was a decision made for short-term gain. It backfired on him spectacularly; whether you personally think it was right to Leave or Remain, it is obvious that the majority of UK politicians did not want Leave to win, did not expect Leave to win, and when Leave won they were utterly lost as to what to do. This is the kind of thing that, frankly, should *not* be done by the head of a nation. But we see it come from Democratic Republics all the time. The Monarchy does not engage in this sort of thing. They wield nigh unassailable power, with the ability to enact changes to our nation without the need to worry about public approval. They rarely do this - most monarchs that do, do so only once. Queen Victoria, for example, forbade the then-serving Prime Minister from forming a government upon taking the throne, as she (rightly) considered him a manipulative bastard who thought he could rule through her, rather than serve the nation at her behest. In this fashion, the Monarchy becomes a check-and-balance against Parliament. Parliament, and all agents of government, are only valid if the Crown declares it so. They are a perpetual sword of Damocles over our government, and they have been dropped before. As for worship... the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, the one true faith, and thus the most important religious figure on Earth. Through His Majesty is the will of God enacted. Some foreign weirdos make similar claims, but they're obviously wrong because everyone knows God is English. I'm obviously being somewhat facetious here, but the Monarch is the head of our national religion, and so if you adhere to the Anglican faith it makes perfect sense why you might worship them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4542.0,"score_ratio":2.2444444444} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwdelj","c_root_id_B":"ipwdku1","created_at_utc_A":1664144897,"created_at_utc_B":1664144973,"score_A":15,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":"No one is arguing that the Monarchy isn't a racist or classist institution. Every democratic country is built on the backs of slaves, and it doesn't make it right by just saying it. That being said, the UK was one of the first countries in the world to ban slavery, and since then been a proponent of freeing slaves whenever possible. As far as the necessity for the monarchy, it's a historical institution that has some level of power then chosen to wield it. For example, in the 1970's, the Queen toured New Zealand and spoke out against the rights of native Maori of the South Island in a single sentence - since then, no-one has spoken against the rights of Maori. Since George VI, the British Empire was disestablished and replaced with the Commonwealth, as the British stepped away from Israel and India. These were very clear failures however, that led to the Palestinian and Pakistani conflicts we see even today. Since Elizabeth II's reign, we've seen a dozen countries step away from the Monarchy peacefully and without violence. Even when Nigeria declared themselves a Republic, Elizabeth II wrote them a letter wishing them well on their newfound sovereignty, even though they've had self-determination for decades. If you look back the last 70 years, you'll find the Queen in fact reformed the monarchy from its racist and imperialistic past to one that works with the modern world. To have collapsed the monarchy would have caused a power vacuum and geopolitical instability as many groups of people would take advantage of the countries without the protection of the monarchy. Instead, we have seen many prosper in the stability of the Queen. As far as the financial impacts, you'll find that most land utilised by the UK government is owned by the Royal Estate and leased to the government. This is land they attained through historical conquests and unions via marriage, however lands they rightfully own - for the UK government to buy back the land from the Royal Estate and detangle the monarchy from the UK government would cost the British taxpayer billions more than the circumstances they have now. The Monarchy is also an extremely useful tourism institution, and assists the UK in billions of dollars a year in economic benefit from tourists sightseeing the Royal Estates, with accommodation in local hotels, eating food from local restaurants, going to local entertainment establishments while they are here. To consider the Monarchy is \"leeching\" from the British taxpayer overlooks the important uses the Monarchy has for the Government, Tourism, and the International Community as a whole. To say they deserve worship? Probably no more deserving than any one might worship any other Head of State. I think from a realistic point of view, the Monarchy isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and it is extremely useful in keeping geopolitical stability and that's what keeps them around. They have a duty as the monarchs of the constitutions they're involved with, and will continue to fulfill those duties as Queen Elizabeth II did for her decades of reigning - if they were to neglect or overstep those duties, you might have cause for removing the Monarchy, but until then, they're a useful tool in the ebb and flow of geopolitics.","human_ref_B":">I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. The simplest way to explain this is that great societies are things passed down; nations where men plant trees under whose shade they shall never sit. Much of the United Kingdom's formal proceedings are hilariously archaic when viewed from a coldly analytical standpoint, but every tradition carries with it a meaning. The costumes, the icons, the means by which certain actions are taken, the specific words used, all of it is inherited from those who came before, and carried forward for those yet unborn. It is a perpetual reminder that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, and that it is something that belongs to all of us - and those yet to be. We have done these things for hundreds of years, passed down these symbols for centuries, as a way to remind ourselves that we must preserve them, and thus preserve the nation, for the future. The Royal Family is a central facet of this notion of duty. >First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone Wrong. Flat out, objectively, wrong. Their \"wealth\" is built upon a series of decisions, transactions, investments, conquests and, on occasion, pathetic grovelling that stretches back beyond time immemorial - that's a fancy way of saying \"so long ago we had to give up tracking who owned what, and just arbitrarily pick a date before which nobody could argue ownership anymore\". It's around the 1100s, if memory serves. For the record, the Royal family went broke a long time ago. The only reason they were allowed to keep all their nice things is Parliament bailed them out in exchange for never having to pay rent on any of the land the Royals owned - which, being royalty, was a LOT of land! This technically only applied to the monarch who went broke, but *every single one* after that agreed to maintain the arrangement. You can watch the formal ascension of Charles III on YouTube and see him confirm this. > which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. Being successful is not racist. Hating people for their skin colour is racist. >Historically they have profited from the black slave trade *Everyone* profited off the slave trade. Except the slaves. Most of the wealthiest African (aka: BLACK) nations became so because of Slavery. This is why Woman King is so controversial - they took one of the most evil groups of (Black) people on Earth, and tried to paint them as noble people fighting against slavery, when in fact they were the ones enslaving people. Europeans didn't enslave Africans - they turned up at pre-existing slave markets. >and continue to leech off of taxpayers See my earlier comment - the total value of the Royal lands in rent alone is generally assumed to be 4x what the royal grant is. As such, they *save* the taxpayer money. Also, they can't be taxed because they aren't subject to Parliamentary rulings - they are the body that gives Parliament legitimacy. >despite contributing very little to society nowadays The Royals do a great deal for this country; they have served in active warzones, for one. The Monarch also acts as an important political fallback - if our Prime Minister were to fall out with a foreign leader, the Monarch can step in to maintain ties. This is more or less what has happened on a few occasions. They also do a lot of charity work and try to help various good causes. >What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get. There is a simple statement that I have found has, thus far, utterly scuppered every single Republican in the UK: upon their ranting at how useless the monarchy is, I simply ask them \"so you want \\[current Prime Minister\\] to be President of the United Kingdom?\" The answer has *always* been \"no.\" No Republican I have ever spoken to has ever wanted our sitting Prime Minister to be the absolute power in our nation This is telling, because I think most people (even if they won't admit it) recognise why direct Democratic rule does not work - Democracy encourages short-term thinking and outright lying. Absolute power is only available in short bursts, and so to hold onto power you must constantly focus on the next election cycle. Thus, Politicians are incapable of thinking more than 2-5 years ahead at a time. The Royal Family does not need to concern itself with short-term politicking. They have their own concerns, naturally, but they don't have to do whatever is current-year relevant to cling to the crown. Here is a prime example: Brexit. This only happened because David Cameron was concerned that UKIP was growing in popularity in the polls, and so he had to take a huge gamble to try and shut down the anti-EU movement in his own party, and British politics in general. This was a decision made for short-term gain. It backfired on him spectacularly; whether you personally think it was right to Leave or Remain, it is obvious that the majority of UK politicians did not want Leave to win, did not expect Leave to win, and when Leave won they were utterly lost as to what to do. This is the kind of thing that, frankly, should *not* be done by the head of a nation. But we see it come from Democratic Republics all the time. The Monarchy does not engage in this sort of thing. They wield nigh unassailable power, with the ability to enact changes to our nation without the need to worry about public approval. They rarely do this - most monarchs that do, do so only once. Queen Victoria, for example, forbade the then-serving Prime Minister from forming a government upon taking the throne, as she (rightly) considered him a manipulative bastard who thought he could rule through her, rather than serve the nation at her behest. In this fashion, the Monarchy becomes a check-and-balance against Parliament. Parliament, and all agents of government, are only valid if the Crown declares it so. They are a perpetual sword of Damocles over our government, and they have been dropped before. As for worship... the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, the one true faith, and thus the most important religious figure on Earth. Through His Majesty is the will of God enacted. Some foreign weirdos make similar claims, but they're obviously wrong because everyone knows God is English. I'm obviously being somewhat facetious here, but the Monarch is the head of our national religion, and so if you adhere to the Anglican faith it makes perfect sense why you might worship them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":76.0,"score_ratio":6.7333333333} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipw5pda","c_root_id_B":"ipwdku1","created_at_utc_A":1664141569,"created_at_utc_B":1664144973,"score_A":10,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":"The Royal family is a symbolic institution. Especially for the monarch, though it comes with a huge amount of wealth and privilege they have to sacrifice there whole life for the institution, to the point they can't even publicly have a opinion. For the institution to have any meaning it has to be traditional and some what put on a pedestal. The second it looses that it becomes somewhat redundant. Though I have no problem with Harry and Megan quitting (Harry atleast never chose to be part of it) the problem I have is that they didn't go and do there own thing, there thing has become \"exposing the Royal family\". They quitt to have a \"normal quiet life\" and seem to just be attracting as much attention as possible.","human_ref_B":">I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. The simplest way to explain this is that great societies are things passed down; nations where men plant trees under whose shade they shall never sit. Much of the United Kingdom's formal proceedings are hilariously archaic when viewed from a coldly analytical standpoint, but every tradition carries with it a meaning. The costumes, the icons, the means by which certain actions are taken, the specific words used, all of it is inherited from those who came before, and carried forward for those yet unborn. It is a perpetual reminder that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, and that it is something that belongs to all of us - and those yet to be. We have done these things for hundreds of years, passed down these symbols for centuries, as a way to remind ourselves that we must preserve them, and thus preserve the nation, for the future. The Royal Family is a central facet of this notion of duty. >First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone Wrong. Flat out, objectively, wrong. Their \"wealth\" is built upon a series of decisions, transactions, investments, conquests and, on occasion, pathetic grovelling that stretches back beyond time immemorial - that's a fancy way of saying \"so long ago we had to give up tracking who owned what, and just arbitrarily pick a date before which nobody could argue ownership anymore\". It's around the 1100s, if memory serves. For the record, the Royal family went broke a long time ago. The only reason they were allowed to keep all their nice things is Parliament bailed them out in exchange for never having to pay rent on any of the land the Royals owned - which, being royalty, was a LOT of land! This technically only applied to the monarch who went broke, but *every single one* after that agreed to maintain the arrangement. You can watch the formal ascension of Charles III on YouTube and see him confirm this. > which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. Being successful is not racist. Hating people for their skin colour is racist. >Historically they have profited from the black slave trade *Everyone* profited off the slave trade. Except the slaves. Most of the wealthiest African (aka: BLACK) nations became so because of Slavery. This is why Woman King is so controversial - they took one of the most evil groups of (Black) people on Earth, and tried to paint them as noble people fighting against slavery, when in fact they were the ones enslaving people. Europeans didn't enslave Africans - they turned up at pre-existing slave markets. >and continue to leech off of taxpayers See my earlier comment - the total value of the Royal lands in rent alone is generally assumed to be 4x what the royal grant is. As such, they *save* the taxpayer money. Also, they can't be taxed because they aren't subject to Parliamentary rulings - they are the body that gives Parliament legitimacy. >despite contributing very little to society nowadays The Royals do a great deal for this country; they have served in active warzones, for one. The Monarch also acts as an important political fallback - if our Prime Minister were to fall out with a foreign leader, the Monarch can step in to maintain ties. This is more or less what has happened on a few occasions. They also do a lot of charity work and try to help various good causes. >What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get. There is a simple statement that I have found has, thus far, utterly scuppered every single Republican in the UK: upon their ranting at how useless the monarchy is, I simply ask them \"so you want \\[current Prime Minister\\] to be President of the United Kingdom?\" The answer has *always* been \"no.\" No Republican I have ever spoken to has ever wanted our sitting Prime Minister to be the absolute power in our nation This is telling, because I think most people (even if they won't admit it) recognise why direct Democratic rule does not work - Democracy encourages short-term thinking and outright lying. Absolute power is only available in short bursts, and so to hold onto power you must constantly focus on the next election cycle. Thus, Politicians are incapable of thinking more than 2-5 years ahead at a time. The Royal Family does not need to concern itself with short-term politicking. They have their own concerns, naturally, but they don't have to do whatever is current-year relevant to cling to the crown. Here is a prime example: Brexit. This only happened because David Cameron was concerned that UKIP was growing in popularity in the polls, and so he had to take a huge gamble to try and shut down the anti-EU movement in his own party, and British politics in general. This was a decision made for short-term gain. It backfired on him spectacularly; whether you personally think it was right to Leave or Remain, it is obvious that the majority of UK politicians did not want Leave to win, did not expect Leave to win, and when Leave won they were utterly lost as to what to do. This is the kind of thing that, frankly, should *not* be done by the head of a nation. But we see it come from Democratic Republics all the time. The Monarchy does not engage in this sort of thing. They wield nigh unassailable power, with the ability to enact changes to our nation without the need to worry about public approval. They rarely do this - most monarchs that do, do so only once. Queen Victoria, for example, forbade the then-serving Prime Minister from forming a government upon taking the throne, as she (rightly) considered him a manipulative bastard who thought he could rule through her, rather than serve the nation at her behest. In this fashion, the Monarchy becomes a check-and-balance against Parliament. Parliament, and all agents of government, are only valid if the Crown declares it so. They are a perpetual sword of Damocles over our government, and they have been dropped before. As for worship... the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, the one true faith, and thus the most important religious figure on Earth. Through His Majesty is the will of God enacted. Some foreign weirdos make similar claims, but they're obviously wrong because everyone knows God is English. I'm obviously being somewhat facetious here, but the Monarch is the head of our national religion, and so if you adhere to the Anglican faith it makes perfect sense why you might worship them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3404.0,"score_ratio":10.1} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwckzx","c_root_id_B":"ipwdku1","created_at_utc_A":1664144528,"created_at_utc_B":1664144973,"score_A":9,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":"What about African kings. The one who rounded up black Africans and sold them to the slave trade. Meaghan is reportedly a bully and a snob who wanted people to bow down. In a bossy bitchy way. She played her hand all wrong. She could have gotten what she wanted, but her personality sucks, so she fucked op her chance of pwming the brits","human_ref_B":">I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. The simplest way to explain this is that great societies are things passed down; nations where men plant trees under whose shade they shall never sit. Much of the United Kingdom's formal proceedings are hilariously archaic when viewed from a coldly analytical standpoint, but every tradition carries with it a meaning. The costumes, the icons, the means by which certain actions are taken, the specific words used, all of it is inherited from those who came before, and carried forward for those yet unborn. It is a perpetual reminder that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, and that it is something that belongs to all of us - and those yet to be. We have done these things for hundreds of years, passed down these symbols for centuries, as a way to remind ourselves that we must preserve them, and thus preserve the nation, for the future. The Royal Family is a central facet of this notion of duty. >First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone Wrong. Flat out, objectively, wrong. Their \"wealth\" is built upon a series of decisions, transactions, investments, conquests and, on occasion, pathetic grovelling that stretches back beyond time immemorial - that's a fancy way of saying \"so long ago we had to give up tracking who owned what, and just arbitrarily pick a date before which nobody could argue ownership anymore\". It's around the 1100s, if memory serves. For the record, the Royal family went broke a long time ago. The only reason they were allowed to keep all their nice things is Parliament bailed them out in exchange for never having to pay rent on any of the land the Royals owned - which, being royalty, was a LOT of land! This technically only applied to the monarch who went broke, but *every single one* after that agreed to maintain the arrangement. You can watch the formal ascension of Charles III on YouTube and see him confirm this. > which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. Being successful is not racist. Hating people for their skin colour is racist. >Historically they have profited from the black slave trade *Everyone* profited off the slave trade. Except the slaves. Most of the wealthiest African (aka: BLACK) nations became so because of Slavery. This is why Woman King is so controversial - they took one of the most evil groups of (Black) people on Earth, and tried to paint them as noble people fighting against slavery, when in fact they were the ones enslaving people. Europeans didn't enslave Africans - they turned up at pre-existing slave markets. >and continue to leech off of taxpayers See my earlier comment - the total value of the Royal lands in rent alone is generally assumed to be 4x what the royal grant is. As such, they *save* the taxpayer money. Also, they can't be taxed because they aren't subject to Parliamentary rulings - they are the body that gives Parliament legitimacy. >despite contributing very little to society nowadays The Royals do a great deal for this country; they have served in active warzones, for one. The Monarch also acts as an important political fallback - if our Prime Minister were to fall out with a foreign leader, the Monarch can step in to maintain ties. This is more or less what has happened on a few occasions. They also do a lot of charity work and try to help various good causes. >What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get. There is a simple statement that I have found has, thus far, utterly scuppered every single Republican in the UK: upon their ranting at how useless the monarchy is, I simply ask them \"so you want \\[current Prime Minister\\] to be President of the United Kingdom?\" The answer has *always* been \"no.\" No Republican I have ever spoken to has ever wanted our sitting Prime Minister to be the absolute power in our nation This is telling, because I think most people (even if they won't admit it) recognise why direct Democratic rule does not work - Democracy encourages short-term thinking and outright lying. Absolute power is only available in short bursts, and so to hold onto power you must constantly focus on the next election cycle. Thus, Politicians are incapable of thinking more than 2-5 years ahead at a time. The Royal Family does not need to concern itself with short-term politicking. They have their own concerns, naturally, but they don't have to do whatever is current-year relevant to cling to the crown. Here is a prime example: Brexit. This only happened because David Cameron was concerned that UKIP was growing in popularity in the polls, and so he had to take a huge gamble to try and shut down the anti-EU movement in his own party, and British politics in general. This was a decision made for short-term gain. It backfired on him spectacularly; whether you personally think it was right to Leave or Remain, it is obvious that the majority of UK politicians did not want Leave to win, did not expect Leave to win, and when Leave won they were utterly lost as to what to do. This is the kind of thing that, frankly, should *not* be done by the head of a nation. But we see it come from Democratic Republics all the time. The Monarchy does not engage in this sort of thing. They wield nigh unassailable power, with the ability to enact changes to our nation without the need to worry about public approval. They rarely do this - most monarchs that do, do so only once. Queen Victoria, for example, forbade the then-serving Prime Minister from forming a government upon taking the throne, as she (rightly) considered him a manipulative bastard who thought he could rule through her, rather than serve the nation at her behest. In this fashion, the Monarchy becomes a check-and-balance against Parliament. Parliament, and all agents of government, are only valid if the Crown declares it so. They are a perpetual sword of Damocles over our government, and they have been dropped before. As for worship... the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, the one true faith, and thus the most important religious figure on Earth. Through His Majesty is the will of God enacted. Some foreign weirdos make similar claims, but they're obviously wrong because everyone knows God is English. I'm obviously being somewhat facetious here, but the Monarch is the head of our national religion, and so if you adhere to the Anglican faith it makes perfect sense why you might worship them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":445.0,"score_ratio":11.2222222222} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwb687","c_root_id_B":"ipw5pda","created_at_utc_A":1664143911,"created_at_utc_B":1664141569,"score_A":42,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. Sure. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. Sure. >The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. Hardly. I\u2019m a republican not a monarchist and while I wouldn\u2019t say I cared enough to be angry , I think people are angry because they think that she ( and obviously Harry) are also incredibly privileged people ( having ditched the duty but that could be said to go with it) whose main claim to fame is \u2018celebrity\u2019 and that she is basically making up stuff or exaggerating in order to get attention. >They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. >What would change my mind? >If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get. I don\u2019t think we need them. I don\u2019t like the idea of valuing people just for who they are or placing exaggerated fantasies and deference on them when we really know little about them. There is the argument, which I\u2019m not entirely convinced of, that you need an independent head of state and one that isn\u2019t subject to the short termism of buying election favour. In general my dispute with you is that I just think that Harry and Meghan are no better. Worse in some ways because for the most part, part of the job is at least keeping quiet and not whining about me, me, me while touting for income. But the only benefit i might consider is that I can see the value in having traditions that might give a nation a sense of shared identity and experience if it brings us together .. like the jubilee stuff or funeral stuff recently, if they actually do that.","human_ref_B":"The Royal family is a symbolic institution. Especially for the monarch, though it comes with a huge amount of wealth and privilege they have to sacrifice there whole life for the institution, to the point they can't even publicly have a opinion. For the institution to have any meaning it has to be traditional and some what put on a pedestal. The second it looses that it becomes somewhat redundant. Though I have no problem with Harry and Megan quitting (Harry atleast never chose to be part of it) the problem I have is that they didn't go and do there own thing, there thing has become \"exposing the Royal family\". They quitt to have a \"normal quiet life\" and seem to just be attracting as much attention as possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2342.0,"score_ratio":4.2} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipxd9eu","c_root_id_B":"ipwp6kb","created_at_utc_A":1664161625,"created_at_utc_B":1664150267,"score_A":36,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":">Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. > >Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. \"Independent\" meaning they live off Daddy Charles and Granny Elizabeth. After Megxit and Haxit... Charles was giving them loads of money every month to support their living. If it was truly a toxic relationship and if they really wanted to distance themselves they should have refused every single dime, instead they took every single penny. Not only that, they wanted to live an oh-so private life yet they are going on all these interviews to pretty much expose every detail about their life to profit off it. ​ >The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. No actually, people were angry for the reason above and because they profited off the Royal family. I understand why they did what they did: Because William already has three children. And by the line of succession Harry will be soon forgotten after the three kids grow up. Just like who even knows about Prince Edward (Charles's youngest brother) anymore.... So when they still have the fame, they want to profit off them as much as possible. They signed with Netflix, went on interviews, about to publish a memoir. Like I said, if the relationship was truly toxic, they should have refused all financial help, let go of their title and truly be independent. Then sure, say what you want. It's like calling your financial supporter shady and toxic while still accepting their money when they have zero obligation to support you financially.","human_ref_B":"They have the right to speak against them of course. Just don't expect the red carpet when you go visit.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11358.0,"score_ratio":1.0285714286} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwygis","c_root_id_B":"ipxd9eu","created_at_utc_A":1664154598,"created_at_utc_B":1664161625,"score_A":21,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"I am not going to hold anyone responsible for the sins of their fathers. The kind of scolds that pull out the race card at every turn are impossible to satisfy anyway, even if their specious claims did hold water. The complaints of groups that will never be happy should be ignored on principle.^(1) The Royal Family project soft power. That is strategically useful to the UK. They are a political instrument, even today (although it remains to be seen how the new King handles it and where things go. The bulk of the heavy lifting was being done by Elizabeth as a person and not just as a figurehead). They are also a major tourist attraction, and they are the focus of a whole media segment in themselves. Much is made of their cost whilst conveniently overlooking their contributions to the economy. Even the fame hungry Meghan is managing to pull in coin and generate business *in America* by being a spectacle riding the royal coattails. Like it or not, people have an appetite for the institution and they will pay. > According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. Sussexroyal.com. How quickly some forget. Harry's an idiot that married a fame hungry woman that's as dumb as he is.^(2) She wanted to leverage being a princess for attention and money, and had she kept her dumb mouth shut and stayed inline she could have had it too. As you rightly point out, there's precedent for what The Firm does with those that don't fulfil their obligations. Diana, Sarah Ferguson, Prince Charles,^(3) Prince Andrew, etc. Yet Meghan thought she was smarter than that? She bit the hand that fed and IMO she's gotten off very lightly indeed (because you don't humiliate the richest family in the world and expect to win if you've got a brain in your head). This is not a simple family squabble, this is state level politics. Of course she was going to screw it up, you only have to look at how she couldn't even deal with her own family dynamics to see it was doomed before it even started. If you want to make it work, *for yourself*, within that institution then you cannot afford to put one foot wrong. The number of people that can rise to that standard of performance is miniscule (including within the Royal Family itself. These are people that have been raised from birth into their roles, have staff around them to help them, have mentors as relatives, rub shoulders with the rich and powerful daily, and they've still frequently screwed it up). ---- 1. Positive reinforcement is the gold standard for behavioural change. Inclusive in that is *ignoring* any undesired negative behaviours. People that get nowhere eventually change course. 1. If there is one way that Elizabeth has utterly failed in her role is in managing the bloodline. Monarchy is a hereditary institution, ergo who you admit to that institution by marriage is *critical*. For example, Diana was a double edged sword in that what she brought to the table invigorated the monarchy *and* threatened it because she was more popular than the monarchy itself. As she put it herself she was a Queen of people's hearts. As far as I'm concerned the Queen had two options: either stop the marriage before it happened, or (more sensibly) manage it afterwards (when things started to go wrong). Diana and Charles didn't have to be married in practice, both of them could have had the affairs they did, they just would have had to shut their mouths in public and stand behind the monarchy. Neither of them did, and the Queen failed to make them. That was a grave error. After that there was Sarah Ferguson, Camilla, etc. and now we find ourselves right back in the same territory with Meghan. She brings nothing to the table but problems: she's unlikable, doesn't care for her place in the family, can't keep her mouth shut, etc. She never should have been allowed to marry Harry. If he wanted to have her as his common law wife and sire bastards with her then that's not a problem for the monarchy. There's plenty of historical precedent. The point of all this is simple: there's way too much on the line for people to be able to freely choose who they're marrying within this institution. The monarchy's wealth and power is primarily linked to heredity, and whilst they cannot choose their children they most certainly can *appoint* the most skilled and prepared individuals for marriages to said children. This is a *job*, an all consuming one, but a job nonetheless. You do not hire someone that cannot do it. It's a lifetime appointment too, so vetting and hiring is even more difficult. 1. He is only now King by the Queen's death. That's very deliberate, and whilst I wouldn't call that *payback* per se I think it is fair to say that his conduct when it came to his wife has cost him dearly when it comes to his place in the Monarchy. If you don't have confidence in a person doing the job, you don't give them the job, do you?","human_ref_B":">Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. > >Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. \"Independent\" meaning they live off Daddy Charles and Granny Elizabeth. After Megxit and Haxit... Charles was giving them loads of money every month to support their living. If it was truly a toxic relationship and if they really wanted to distance themselves they should have refused every single dime, instead they took every single penny. Not only that, they wanted to live an oh-so private life yet they are going on all these interviews to pretty much expose every detail about their life to profit off it. ​ >The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. No actually, people were angry for the reason above and because they profited off the Royal family. I understand why they did what they did: Because William already has three children. And by the line of succession Harry will be soon forgotten after the three kids grow up. Just like who even knows about Prince Edward (Charles's youngest brother) anymore.... So when they still have the fame, they want to profit off them as much as possible. They signed with Netflix, went on interviews, about to publish a memoir. Like I said, if the relationship was truly toxic, they should have refused all financial help, let go of their title and truly be independent. Then sure, say what you want. It's like calling your financial supporter shady and toxic while still accepting their money when they have zero obligation to support you financially.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7027.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwdelj","c_root_id_B":"ipxd9eu","created_at_utc_A":1664144897,"created_at_utc_B":1664161625,"score_A":15,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"No one is arguing that the Monarchy isn't a racist or classist institution. Every democratic country is built on the backs of slaves, and it doesn't make it right by just saying it. That being said, the UK was one of the first countries in the world to ban slavery, and since then been a proponent of freeing slaves whenever possible. As far as the necessity for the monarchy, it's a historical institution that has some level of power then chosen to wield it. For example, in the 1970's, the Queen toured New Zealand and spoke out against the rights of native Maori of the South Island in a single sentence - since then, no-one has spoken against the rights of Maori. Since George VI, the British Empire was disestablished and replaced with the Commonwealth, as the British stepped away from Israel and India. These were very clear failures however, that led to the Palestinian and Pakistani conflicts we see even today. Since Elizabeth II's reign, we've seen a dozen countries step away from the Monarchy peacefully and without violence. Even when Nigeria declared themselves a Republic, Elizabeth II wrote them a letter wishing them well on their newfound sovereignty, even though they've had self-determination for decades. If you look back the last 70 years, you'll find the Queen in fact reformed the monarchy from its racist and imperialistic past to one that works with the modern world. To have collapsed the monarchy would have caused a power vacuum and geopolitical instability as many groups of people would take advantage of the countries without the protection of the monarchy. Instead, we have seen many prosper in the stability of the Queen. As far as the financial impacts, you'll find that most land utilised by the UK government is owned by the Royal Estate and leased to the government. This is land they attained through historical conquests and unions via marriage, however lands they rightfully own - for the UK government to buy back the land from the Royal Estate and detangle the monarchy from the UK government would cost the British taxpayer billions more than the circumstances they have now. The Monarchy is also an extremely useful tourism institution, and assists the UK in billions of dollars a year in economic benefit from tourists sightseeing the Royal Estates, with accommodation in local hotels, eating food from local restaurants, going to local entertainment establishments while they are here. To consider the Monarchy is \"leeching\" from the British taxpayer overlooks the important uses the Monarchy has for the Government, Tourism, and the International Community as a whole. To say they deserve worship? Probably no more deserving than any one might worship any other Head of State. I think from a realistic point of view, the Monarchy isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and it is extremely useful in keeping geopolitical stability and that's what keeps them around. They have a duty as the monarchs of the constitutions they're involved with, and will continue to fulfill those duties as Queen Elizabeth II did for her decades of reigning - if they were to neglect or overstep those duties, you might have cause for removing the Monarchy, but until then, they're a useful tool in the ebb and flow of geopolitics.","human_ref_B":">Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. > >Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. \"Independent\" meaning they live off Daddy Charles and Granny Elizabeth. After Megxit and Haxit... Charles was giving them loads of money every month to support their living. If it was truly a toxic relationship and if they really wanted to distance themselves they should have refused every single dime, instead they took every single penny. Not only that, they wanted to live an oh-so private life yet they are going on all these interviews to pretty much expose every detail about their life to profit off it. ​ >The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. No actually, people were angry for the reason above and because they profited off the Royal family. I understand why they did what they did: Because William already has three children. And by the line of succession Harry will be soon forgotten after the three kids grow up. Just like who even knows about Prince Edward (Charles's youngest brother) anymore.... So when they still have the fame, they want to profit off them as much as possible. They signed with Netflix, went on interviews, about to publish a memoir. Like I said, if the relationship was truly toxic, they should have refused all financial help, let go of their title and truly be independent. Then sure, say what you want. It's like calling your financial supporter shady and toxic while still accepting their money when they have zero obligation to support you financially.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16728.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipw5pda","c_root_id_B":"ipxd9eu","created_at_utc_A":1664141569,"created_at_utc_B":1664161625,"score_A":10,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"The Royal family is a symbolic institution. Especially for the monarch, though it comes with a huge amount of wealth and privilege they have to sacrifice there whole life for the institution, to the point they can't even publicly have a opinion. For the institution to have any meaning it has to be traditional and some what put on a pedestal. The second it looses that it becomes somewhat redundant. Though I have no problem with Harry and Megan quitting (Harry atleast never chose to be part of it) the problem I have is that they didn't go and do there own thing, there thing has become \"exposing the Royal family\". They quitt to have a \"normal quiet life\" and seem to just be attracting as much attention as possible.","human_ref_B":">Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. > >Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. \"Independent\" meaning they live off Daddy Charles and Granny Elizabeth. After Megxit and Haxit... Charles was giving them loads of money every month to support their living. If it was truly a toxic relationship and if they really wanted to distance themselves they should have refused every single dime, instead they took every single penny. Not only that, they wanted to live an oh-so private life yet they are going on all these interviews to pretty much expose every detail about their life to profit off it. ​ >The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. No actually, people were angry for the reason above and because they profited off the Royal family. I understand why they did what they did: Because William already has three children. And by the line of succession Harry will be soon forgotten after the three kids grow up. Just like who even knows about Prince Edward (Charles's youngest brother) anymore.... So when they still have the fame, they want to profit off them as much as possible. They signed with Netflix, went on interviews, about to publish a memoir. Like I said, if the relationship was truly toxic, they should have refused all financial help, let go of their title and truly be independent. Then sure, say what you want. It's like calling your financial supporter shady and toxic while still accepting their money when they have zero obligation to support you financially.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20056.0,"score_ratio":3.6} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwik0o","c_root_id_B":"ipxd9eu","created_at_utc_A":1664147173,"created_at_utc_B":1664161625,"score_A":10,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"Well everyone already commented on how your historical and financial aspects are wrong, so i will respond on a more personal level. Im a second generation minority in a former colony country that still have them as symbolic heads of state. I like it. I dont have strong roots with my parents country of origin. I can speak the mother tongue somewhat fluently but not enough that i will be one of them. To my own people i am an outsider. But in my former colony country i feel that connection to the monarchy. I am proud that my country decided to become independant from them through decades of finding our national identity but still recognizing the heritage and culture that the british empire gave us. Im not going to be buying commemorative plates or waving the union jack but i like the monarchy. people really make this into too big a deal. Sure im sure there were problematic moments in its history. As every country has. Its not fair to hold them to 2022 standards. They dont really have any power. Theyre just mascots.","human_ref_B":">Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. > >Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. \"Independent\" meaning they live off Daddy Charles and Granny Elizabeth. After Megxit and Haxit... Charles was giving them loads of money every month to support their living. If it was truly a toxic relationship and if they really wanted to distance themselves they should have refused every single dime, instead they took every single penny. Not only that, they wanted to live an oh-so private life yet they are going on all these interviews to pretty much expose every detail about their life to profit off it. ​ >The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. No actually, people were angry for the reason above and because they profited off the Royal family. I understand why they did what they did: Because William already has three children. And by the line of succession Harry will be soon forgotten after the three kids grow up. Just like who even knows about Prince Edward (Charles's youngest brother) anymore.... So when they still have the fame, they want to profit off them as much as possible. They signed with Netflix, went on interviews, about to publish a memoir. Like I said, if the relationship was truly toxic, they should have refused all financial help, let go of their title and truly be independent. Then sure, say what you want. It's like calling your financial supporter shady and toxic while still accepting their money when they have zero obligation to support you financially.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14452.0,"score_ratio":3.6} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipxd9eu","c_root_id_B":"ipwckzx","created_at_utc_A":1664161625,"created_at_utc_B":1664144528,"score_A":36,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. > >Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. \"Independent\" meaning they live off Daddy Charles and Granny Elizabeth. After Megxit and Haxit... Charles was giving them loads of money every month to support their living. If it was truly a toxic relationship and if they really wanted to distance themselves they should have refused every single dime, instead they took every single penny. Not only that, they wanted to live an oh-so private life yet they are going on all these interviews to pretty much expose every detail about their life to profit off it. ​ >The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. No actually, people were angry for the reason above and because they profited off the Royal family. I understand why they did what they did: Because William already has three children. And by the line of succession Harry will be soon forgotten after the three kids grow up. Just like who even knows about Prince Edward (Charles's youngest brother) anymore.... So when they still have the fame, they want to profit off them as much as possible. They signed with Netflix, went on interviews, about to publish a memoir. Like I said, if the relationship was truly toxic, they should have refused all financial help, let go of their title and truly be independent. Then sure, say what you want. It's like calling your financial supporter shady and toxic while still accepting their money when they have zero obligation to support you financially.","human_ref_B":"What about African kings. The one who rounded up black Africans and sold them to the slave trade. Meaghan is reportedly a bully and a snob who wanted people to bow down. In a bossy bitchy way. She played her hand all wrong. She could have gotten what she wanted, but her personality sucks, so she fucked op her chance of pwming the brits","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17097.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwp6kb","c_root_id_B":"ipwdelj","created_at_utc_A":1664150267,"created_at_utc_B":1664144897,"score_A":35,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"They have the right to speak against them of course. Just don't expect the red carpet when you go visit.","human_ref_B":"No one is arguing that the Monarchy isn't a racist or classist institution. Every democratic country is built on the backs of slaves, and it doesn't make it right by just saying it. That being said, the UK was one of the first countries in the world to ban slavery, and since then been a proponent of freeing slaves whenever possible. As far as the necessity for the monarchy, it's a historical institution that has some level of power then chosen to wield it. For example, in the 1970's, the Queen toured New Zealand and spoke out against the rights of native Maori of the South Island in a single sentence - since then, no-one has spoken against the rights of Maori. Since George VI, the British Empire was disestablished and replaced with the Commonwealth, as the British stepped away from Israel and India. These were very clear failures however, that led to the Palestinian and Pakistani conflicts we see even today. Since Elizabeth II's reign, we've seen a dozen countries step away from the Monarchy peacefully and without violence. Even when Nigeria declared themselves a Republic, Elizabeth II wrote them a letter wishing them well on their newfound sovereignty, even though they've had self-determination for decades. If you look back the last 70 years, you'll find the Queen in fact reformed the monarchy from its racist and imperialistic past to one that works with the modern world. To have collapsed the monarchy would have caused a power vacuum and geopolitical instability as many groups of people would take advantage of the countries without the protection of the monarchy. Instead, we have seen many prosper in the stability of the Queen. As far as the financial impacts, you'll find that most land utilised by the UK government is owned by the Royal Estate and leased to the government. This is land they attained through historical conquests and unions via marriage, however lands they rightfully own - for the UK government to buy back the land from the Royal Estate and detangle the monarchy from the UK government would cost the British taxpayer billions more than the circumstances they have now. The Monarchy is also an extremely useful tourism institution, and assists the UK in billions of dollars a year in economic benefit from tourists sightseeing the Royal Estates, with accommodation in local hotels, eating food from local restaurants, going to local entertainment establishments while they are here. To consider the Monarchy is \"leeching\" from the British taxpayer overlooks the important uses the Monarchy has for the Government, Tourism, and the International Community as a whole. To say they deserve worship? Probably no more deserving than any one might worship any other Head of State. I think from a realistic point of view, the Monarchy isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and it is extremely useful in keeping geopolitical stability and that's what keeps them around. They have a duty as the monarchs of the constitutions they're involved with, and will continue to fulfill those duties as Queen Elizabeth II did for her decades of reigning - if they were to neglect or overstep those duties, you might have cause for removing the Monarchy, but until then, they're a useful tool in the ebb and flow of geopolitics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5370.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipw5pda","c_root_id_B":"ipwp6kb","created_at_utc_A":1664141569,"created_at_utc_B":1664150267,"score_A":10,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"The Royal family is a symbolic institution. Especially for the monarch, though it comes with a huge amount of wealth and privilege they have to sacrifice there whole life for the institution, to the point they can't even publicly have a opinion. For the institution to have any meaning it has to be traditional and some what put on a pedestal. The second it looses that it becomes somewhat redundant. Though I have no problem with Harry and Megan quitting (Harry atleast never chose to be part of it) the problem I have is that they didn't go and do there own thing, there thing has become \"exposing the Royal family\". They quitt to have a \"normal quiet life\" and seem to just be attracting as much attention as possible.","human_ref_B":"They have the right to speak against them of course. Just don't expect the red carpet when you go visit.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8698.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwp6kb","c_root_id_B":"ipwik0o","created_at_utc_A":1664150267,"created_at_utc_B":1664147173,"score_A":35,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"They have the right to speak against them of course. Just don't expect the red carpet when you go visit.","human_ref_B":"Well everyone already commented on how your historical and financial aspects are wrong, so i will respond on a more personal level. Im a second generation minority in a former colony country that still have them as symbolic heads of state. I like it. I dont have strong roots with my parents country of origin. I can speak the mother tongue somewhat fluently but not enough that i will be one of them. To my own people i am an outsider. But in my former colony country i feel that connection to the monarchy. I am proud that my country decided to become independant from them through decades of finding our national identity but still recognizing the heritage and culture that the british empire gave us. Im not going to be buying commemorative plates or waving the union jack but i like the monarchy. people really make this into too big a deal. Sure im sure there were problematic moments in its history. As every country has. Its not fair to hold them to 2022 standards. They dont really have any power. Theyre just mascots.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3094.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwckzx","c_root_id_B":"ipwp6kb","created_at_utc_A":1664144528,"created_at_utc_B":1664150267,"score_A":9,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"What about African kings. The one who rounded up black Africans and sold them to the slave trade. Meaghan is reportedly a bully and a snob who wanted people to bow down. In a bossy bitchy way. She played her hand all wrong. She could have gotten what she wanted, but her personality sucks, so she fucked op her chance of pwming the brits","human_ref_B":"They have the right to speak against them of course. Just don't expect the red carpet when you go visit.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5739.0,"score_ratio":3.8888888889} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwdelj","c_root_id_B":"ipwygis","created_at_utc_A":1664144897,"created_at_utc_B":1664154598,"score_A":15,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"No one is arguing that the Monarchy isn't a racist or classist institution. Every democratic country is built on the backs of slaves, and it doesn't make it right by just saying it. That being said, the UK was one of the first countries in the world to ban slavery, and since then been a proponent of freeing slaves whenever possible. As far as the necessity for the monarchy, it's a historical institution that has some level of power then chosen to wield it. For example, in the 1970's, the Queen toured New Zealand and spoke out against the rights of native Maori of the South Island in a single sentence - since then, no-one has spoken against the rights of Maori. Since George VI, the British Empire was disestablished and replaced with the Commonwealth, as the British stepped away from Israel and India. These were very clear failures however, that led to the Palestinian and Pakistani conflicts we see even today. Since Elizabeth II's reign, we've seen a dozen countries step away from the Monarchy peacefully and without violence. Even when Nigeria declared themselves a Republic, Elizabeth II wrote them a letter wishing them well on their newfound sovereignty, even though they've had self-determination for decades. If you look back the last 70 years, you'll find the Queen in fact reformed the monarchy from its racist and imperialistic past to one that works with the modern world. To have collapsed the monarchy would have caused a power vacuum and geopolitical instability as many groups of people would take advantage of the countries without the protection of the monarchy. Instead, we have seen many prosper in the stability of the Queen. As far as the financial impacts, you'll find that most land utilised by the UK government is owned by the Royal Estate and leased to the government. This is land they attained through historical conquests and unions via marriage, however lands they rightfully own - for the UK government to buy back the land from the Royal Estate and detangle the monarchy from the UK government would cost the British taxpayer billions more than the circumstances they have now. The Monarchy is also an extremely useful tourism institution, and assists the UK in billions of dollars a year in economic benefit from tourists sightseeing the Royal Estates, with accommodation in local hotels, eating food from local restaurants, going to local entertainment establishments while they are here. To consider the Monarchy is \"leeching\" from the British taxpayer overlooks the important uses the Monarchy has for the Government, Tourism, and the International Community as a whole. To say they deserve worship? Probably no more deserving than any one might worship any other Head of State. I think from a realistic point of view, the Monarchy isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and it is extremely useful in keeping geopolitical stability and that's what keeps them around. They have a duty as the monarchs of the constitutions they're involved with, and will continue to fulfill those duties as Queen Elizabeth II did for her decades of reigning - if they were to neglect or overstep those duties, you might have cause for removing the Monarchy, but until then, they're a useful tool in the ebb and flow of geopolitics.","human_ref_B":"I am not going to hold anyone responsible for the sins of their fathers. The kind of scolds that pull out the race card at every turn are impossible to satisfy anyway, even if their specious claims did hold water. The complaints of groups that will never be happy should be ignored on principle.^(1) The Royal Family project soft power. That is strategically useful to the UK. They are a political instrument, even today (although it remains to be seen how the new King handles it and where things go. The bulk of the heavy lifting was being done by Elizabeth as a person and not just as a figurehead). They are also a major tourist attraction, and they are the focus of a whole media segment in themselves. Much is made of their cost whilst conveniently overlooking their contributions to the economy. Even the fame hungry Meghan is managing to pull in coin and generate business *in America* by being a spectacle riding the royal coattails. Like it or not, people have an appetite for the institution and they will pay. > According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. Sussexroyal.com. How quickly some forget. Harry's an idiot that married a fame hungry woman that's as dumb as he is.^(2) She wanted to leverage being a princess for attention and money, and had she kept her dumb mouth shut and stayed inline she could have had it too. As you rightly point out, there's precedent for what The Firm does with those that don't fulfil their obligations. Diana, Sarah Ferguson, Prince Charles,^(3) Prince Andrew, etc. Yet Meghan thought she was smarter than that? She bit the hand that fed and IMO she's gotten off very lightly indeed (because you don't humiliate the richest family in the world and expect to win if you've got a brain in your head). This is not a simple family squabble, this is state level politics. Of course she was going to screw it up, you only have to look at how she couldn't even deal with her own family dynamics to see it was doomed before it even started. If you want to make it work, *for yourself*, within that institution then you cannot afford to put one foot wrong. The number of people that can rise to that standard of performance is miniscule (including within the Royal Family itself. These are people that have been raised from birth into their roles, have staff around them to help them, have mentors as relatives, rub shoulders with the rich and powerful daily, and they've still frequently screwed it up). ---- 1. Positive reinforcement is the gold standard for behavioural change. Inclusive in that is *ignoring* any undesired negative behaviours. People that get nowhere eventually change course. 1. If there is one way that Elizabeth has utterly failed in her role is in managing the bloodline. Monarchy is a hereditary institution, ergo who you admit to that institution by marriage is *critical*. For example, Diana was a double edged sword in that what she brought to the table invigorated the monarchy *and* threatened it because she was more popular than the monarchy itself. As she put it herself she was a Queen of people's hearts. As far as I'm concerned the Queen had two options: either stop the marriage before it happened, or (more sensibly) manage it afterwards (when things started to go wrong). Diana and Charles didn't have to be married in practice, both of them could have had the affairs they did, they just would have had to shut their mouths in public and stand behind the monarchy. Neither of them did, and the Queen failed to make them. That was a grave error. After that there was Sarah Ferguson, Camilla, etc. and now we find ourselves right back in the same territory with Meghan. She brings nothing to the table but problems: she's unlikable, doesn't care for her place in the family, can't keep her mouth shut, etc. She never should have been allowed to marry Harry. If he wanted to have her as his common law wife and sire bastards with her then that's not a problem for the monarchy. There's plenty of historical precedent. The point of all this is simple: there's way too much on the line for people to be able to freely choose who they're marrying within this institution. The monarchy's wealth and power is primarily linked to heredity, and whilst they cannot choose their children they most certainly can *appoint* the most skilled and prepared individuals for marriages to said children. This is a *job*, an all consuming one, but a job nonetheless. You do not hire someone that cannot do it. It's a lifetime appointment too, so vetting and hiring is even more difficult. 1. He is only now King by the Queen's death. That's very deliberate, and whilst I wouldn't call that *payback* per se I think it is fair to say that his conduct when it came to his wife has cost him dearly when it comes to his place in the Monarchy. If you don't have confidence in a person doing the job, you don't give them the job, do you?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9701.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipw5pda","c_root_id_B":"ipwygis","created_at_utc_A":1664141569,"created_at_utc_B":1664154598,"score_A":10,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"The Royal family is a symbolic institution. Especially for the monarch, though it comes with a huge amount of wealth and privilege they have to sacrifice there whole life for the institution, to the point they can't even publicly have a opinion. For the institution to have any meaning it has to be traditional and some what put on a pedestal. The second it looses that it becomes somewhat redundant. Though I have no problem with Harry and Megan quitting (Harry atleast never chose to be part of it) the problem I have is that they didn't go and do there own thing, there thing has become \"exposing the Royal family\". They quitt to have a \"normal quiet life\" and seem to just be attracting as much attention as possible.","human_ref_B":"I am not going to hold anyone responsible for the sins of their fathers. The kind of scolds that pull out the race card at every turn are impossible to satisfy anyway, even if their specious claims did hold water. The complaints of groups that will never be happy should be ignored on principle.^(1) The Royal Family project soft power. That is strategically useful to the UK. They are a political instrument, even today (although it remains to be seen how the new King handles it and where things go. The bulk of the heavy lifting was being done by Elizabeth as a person and not just as a figurehead). They are also a major tourist attraction, and they are the focus of a whole media segment in themselves. Much is made of their cost whilst conveniently overlooking their contributions to the economy. Even the fame hungry Meghan is managing to pull in coin and generate business *in America* by being a spectacle riding the royal coattails. Like it or not, people have an appetite for the institution and they will pay. > According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. Sussexroyal.com. How quickly some forget. Harry's an idiot that married a fame hungry woman that's as dumb as he is.^(2) She wanted to leverage being a princess for attention and money, and had she kept her dumb mouth shut and stayed inline she could have had it too. As you rightly point out, there's precedent for what The Firm does with those that don't fulfil their obligations. Diana, Sarah Ferguson, Prince Charles,^(3) Prince Andrew, etc. Yet Meghan thought she was smarter than that? She bit the hand that fed and IMO she's gotten off very lightly indeed (because you don't humiliate the richest family in the world and expect to win if you've got a brain in your head). This is not a simple family squabble, this is state level politics. Of course she was going to screw it up, you only have to look at how she couldn't even deal with her own family dynamics to see it was doomed before it even started. If you want to make it work, *for yourself*, within that institution then you cannot afford to put one foot wrong. The number of people that can rise to that standard of performance is miniscule (including within the Royal Family itself. These are people that have been raised from birth into their roles, have staff around them to help them, have mentors as relatives, rub shoulders with the rich and powerful daily, and they've still frequently screwed it up). ---- 1. Positive reinforcement is the gold standard for behavioural change. Inclusive in that is *ignoring* any undesired negative behaviours. People that get nowhere eventually change course. 1. If there is one way that Elizabeth has utterly failed in her role is in managing the bloodline. Monarchy is a hereditary institution, ergo who you admit to that institution by marriage is *critical*. For example, Diana was a double edged sword in that what she brought to the table invigorated the monarchy *and* threatened it because she was more popular than the monarchy itself. As she put it herself she was a Queen of people's hearts. As far as I'm concerned the Queen had two options: either stop the marriage before it happened, or (more sensibly) manage it afterwards (when things started to go wrong). Diana and Charles didn't have to be married in practice, both of them could have had the affairs they did, they just would have had to shut their mouths in public and stand behind the monarchy. Neither of them did, and the Queen failed to make them. That was a grave error. After that there was Sarah Ferguson, Camilla, etc. and now we find ourselves right back in the same territory with Meghan. She brings nothing to the table but problems: she's unlikable, doesn't care for her place in the family, can't keep her mouth shut, etc. She never should have been allowed to marry Harry. If he wanted to have her as his common law wife and sire bastards with her then that's not a problem for the monarchy. There's plenty of historical precedent. The point of all this is simple: there's way too much on the line for people to be able to freely choose who they're marrying within this institution. The monarchy's wealth and power is primarily linked to heredity, and whilst they cannot choose their children they most certainly can *appoint* the most skilled and prepared individuals for marriages to said children. This is a *job*, an all consuming one, but a job nonetheless. You do not hire someone that cannot do it. It's a lifetime appointment too, so vetting and hiring is even more difficult. 1. He is only now King by the Queen's death. That's very deliberate, and whilst I wouldn't call that *payback* per se I think it is fair to say that his conduct when it came to his wife has cost him dearly when it comes to his place in the Monarchy. If you don't have confidence in a person doing the job, you don't give them the job, do you?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13029.0,"score_ratio":2.1} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwygis","c_root_id_B":"ipwik0o","created_at_utc_A":1664154598,"created_at_utc_B":1664147173,"score_A":21,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I am not going to hold anyone responsible for the sins of their fathers. The kind of scolds that pull out the race card at every turn are impossible to satisfy anyway, even if their specious claims did hold water. The complaints of groups that will never be happy should be ignored on principle.^(1) The Royal Family project soft power. That is strategically useful to the UK. They are a political instrument, even today (although it remains to be seen how the new King handles it and where things go. The bulk of the heavy lifting was being done by Elizabeth as a person and not just as a figurehead). They are also a major tourist attraction, and they are the focus of a whole media segment in themselves. Much is made of their cost whilst conveniently overlooking their contributions to the economy. Even the fame hungry Meghan is managing to pull in coin and generate business *in America* by being a spectacle riding the royal coattails. Like it or not, people have an appetite for the institution and they will pay. > According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. Sussexroyal.com. How quickly some forget. Harry's an idiot that married a fame hungry woman that's as dumb as he is.^(2) She wanted to leverage being a princess for attention and money, and had she kept her dumb mouth shut and stayed inline she could have had it too. As you rightly point out, there's precedent for what The Firm does with those that don't fulfil their obligations. Diana, Sarah Ferguson, Prince Charles,^(3) Prince Andrew, etc. Yet Meghan thought she was smarter than that? She bit the hand that fed and IMO she's gotten off very lightly indeed (because you don't humiliate the richest family in the world and expect to win if you've got a brain in your head). This is not a simple family squabble, this is state level politics. Of course she was going to screw it up, you only have to look at how she couldn't even deal with her own family dynamics to see it was doomed before it even started. If you want to make it work, *for yourself*, within that institution then you cannot afford to put one foot wrong. The number of people that can rise to that standard of performance is miniscule (including within the Royal Family itself. These are people that have been raised from birth into their roles, have staff around them to help them, have mentors as relatives, rub shoulders with the rich and powerful daily, and they've still frequently screwed it up). ---- 1. Positive reinforcement is the gold standard for behavioural change. Inclusive in that is *ignoring* any undesired negative behaviours. People that get nowhere eventually change course. 1. If there is one way that Elizabeth has utterly failed in her role is in managing the bloodline. Monarchy is a hereditary institution, ergo who you admit to that institution by marriage is *critical*. For example, Diana was a double edged sword in that what she brought to the table invigorated the monarchy *and* threatened it because she was more popular than the monarchy itself. As she put it herself she was a Queen of people's hearts. As far as I'm concerned the Queen had two options: either stop the marriage before it happened, or (more sensibly) manage it afterwards (when things started to go wrong). Diana and Charles didn't have to be married in practice, both of them could have had the affairs they did, they just would have had to shut their mouths in public and stand behind the monarchy. Neither of them did, and the Queen failed to make them. That was a grave error. After that there was Sarah Ferguson, Camilla, etc. and now we find ourselves right back in the same territory with Meghan. She brings nothing to the table but problems: she's unlikable, doesn't care for her place in the family, can't keep her mouth shut, etc. She never should have been allowed to marry Harry. If he wanted to have her as his common law wife and sire bastards with her then that's not a problem for the monarchy. There's plenty of historical precedent. The point of all this is simple: there's way too much on the line for people to be able to freely choose who they're marrying within this institution. The monarchy's wealth and power is primarily linked to heredity, and whilst they cannot choose their children they most certainly can *appoint* the most skilled and prepared individuals for marriages to said children. This is a *job*, an all consuming one, but a job nonetheless. You do not hire someone that cannot do it. It's a lifetime appointment too, so vetting and hiring is even more difficult. 1. He is only now King by the Queen's death. That's very deliberate, and whilst I wouldn't call that *payback* per se I think it is fair to say that his conduct when it came to his wife has cost him dearly when it comes to his place in the Monarchy. If you don't have confidence in a person doing the job, you don't give them the job, do you?","human_ref_B":"Well everyone already commented on how your historical and financial aspects are wrong, so i will respond on a more personal level. Im a second generation minority in a former colony country that still have them as symbolic heads of state. I like it. I dont have strong roots with my parents country of origin. I can speak the mother tongue somewhat fluently but not enough that i will be one of them. To my own people i am an outsider. But in my former colony country i feel that connection to the monarchy. I am proud that my country decided to become independant from them through decades of finding our national identity but still recognizing the heritage and culture that the british empire gave us. Im not going to be buying commemorative plates or waving the union jack but i like the monarchy. people really make this into too big a deal. Sure im sure there were problematic moments in its history. As every country has. Its not fair to hold them to 2022 standards. They dont really have any power. Theyre just mascots.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7425.0,"score_ratio":2.1} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwygis","c_root_id_B":"ipwckzx","created_at_utc_A":1664154598,"created_at_utc_B":1664144528,"score_A":21,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I am not going to hold anyone responsible for the sins of their fathers. The kind of scolds that pull out the race card at every turn are impossible to satisfy anyway, even if their specious claims did hold water. The complaints of groups that will never be happy should be ignored on principle.^(1) The Royal Family project soft power. That is strategically useful to the UK. They are a political instrument, even today (although it remains to be seen how the new King handles it and where things go. The bulk of the heavy lifting was being done by Elizabeth as a person and not just as a figurehead). They are also a major tourist attraction, and they are the focus of a whole media segment in themselves. Much is made of their cost whilst conveniently overlooking their contributions to the economy. Even the fame hungry Meghan is managing to pull in coin and generate business *in America* by being a spectacle riding the royal coattails. Like it or not, people have an appetite for the institution and they will pay. > According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. Sussexroyal.com. How quickly some forget. Harry's an idiot that married a fame hungry woman that's as dumb as he is.^(2) She wanted to leverage being a princess for attention and money, and had she kept her dumb mouth shut and stayed inline she could have had it too. As you rightly point out, there's precedent for what The Firm does with those that don't fulfil their obligations. Diana, Sarah Ferguson, Prince Charles,^(3) Prince Andrew, etc. Yet Meghan thought she was smarter than that? She bit the hand that fed and IMO she's gotten off very lightly indeed (because you don't humiliate the richest family in the world and expect to win if you've got a brain in your head). This is not a simple family squabble, this is state level politics. Of course she was going to screw it up, you only have to look at how she couldn't even deal with her own family dynamics to see it was doomed before it even started. If you want to make it work, *for yourself*, within that institution then you cannot afford to put one foot wrong. The number of people that can rise to that standard of performance is miniscule (including within the Royal Family itself. These are people that have been raised from birth into their roles, have staff around them to help them, have mentors as relatives, rub shoulders with the rich and powerful daily, and they've still frequently screwed it up). ---- 1. Positive reinforcement is the gold standard for behavioural change. Inclusive in that is *ignoring* any undesired negative behaviours. People that get nowhere eventually change course. 1. If there is one way that Elizabeth has utterly failed in her role is in managing the bloodline. Monarchy is a hereditary institution, ergo who you admit to that institution by marriage is *critical*. For example, Diana was a double edged sword in that what she brought to the table invigorated the monarchy *and* threatened it because she was more popular than the monarchy itself. As she put it herself she was a Queen of people's hearts. As far as I'm concerned the Queen had two options: either stop the marriage before it happened, or (more sensibly) manage it afterwards (when things started to go wrong). Diana and Charles didn't have to be married in practice, both of them could have had the affairs they did, they just would have had to shut their mouths in public and stand behind the monarchy. Neither of them did, and the Queen failed to make them. That was a grave error. After that there was Sarah Ferguson, Camilla, etc. and now we find ourselves right back in the same territory with Meghan. She brings nothing to the table but problems: she's unlikable, doesn't care for her place in the family, can't keep her mouth shut, etc. She never should have been allowed to marry Harry. If he wanted to have her as his common law wife and sire bastards with her then that's not a problem for the monarchy. There's plenty of historical precedent. The point of all this is simple: there's way too much on the line for people to be able to freely choose who they're marrying within this institution. The monarchy's wealth and power is primarily linked to heredity, and whilst they cannot choose their children they most certainly can *appoint* the most skilled and prepared individuals for marriages to said children. This is a *job*, an all consuming one, but a job nonetheless. You do not hire someone that cannot do it. It's a lifetime appointment too, so vetting and hiring is even more difficult. 1. He is only now King by the Queen's death. That's very deliberate, and whilst I wouldn't call that *payback* per se I think it is fair to say that his conduct when it came to his wife has cost him dearly when it comes to his place in the Monarchy. If you don't have confidence in a person doing the job, you don't give them the job, do you?","human_ref_B":"What about African kings. The one who rounded up black Africans and sold them to the slave trade. Meaghan is reportedly a bully and a snob who wanted people to bow down. In a bossy bitchy way. She played her hand all wrong. She could have gotten what she wanted, but her personality sucks, so she fucked op her chance of pwming the brits","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10070.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipw5pda","c_root_id_B":"ipwdelj","created_at_utc_A":1664141569,"created_at_utc_B":1664144897,"score_A":10,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"The Royal family is a symbolic institution. Especially for the monarch, though it comes with a huge amount of wealth and privilege they have to sacrifice there whole life for the institution, to the point they can't even publicly have a opinion. For the institution to have any meaning it has to be traditional and some what put on a pedestal. The second it looses that it becomes somewhat redundant. Though I have no problem with Harry and Megan quitting (Harry atleast never chose to be part of it) the problem I have is that they didn't go and do there own thing, there thing has become \"exposing the Royal family\". They quitt to have a \"normal quiet life\" and seem to just be attracting as much attention as possible.","human_ref_B":"No one is arguing that the Monarchy isn't a racist or classist institution. Every democratic country is built on the backs of slaves, and it doesn't make it right by just saying it. That being said, the UK was one of the first countries in the world to ban slavery, and since then been a proponent of freeing slaves whenever possible. As far as the necessity for the monarchy, it's a historical institution that has some level of power then chosen to wield it. For example, in the 1970's, the Queen toured New Zealand and spoke out against the rights of native Maori of the South Island in a single sentence - since then, no-one has spoken against the rights of Maori. Since George VI, the British Empire was disestablished and replaced with the Commonwealth, as the British stepped away from Israel and India. These were very clear failures however, that led to the Palestinian and Pakistani conflicts we see even today. Since Elizabeth II's reign, we've seen a dozen countries step away from the Monarchy peacefully and without violence. Even when Nigeria declared themselves a Republic, Elizabeth II wrote them a letter wishing them well on their newfound sovereignty, even though they've had self-determination for decades. If you look back the last 70 years, you'll find the Queen in fact reformed the monarchy from its racist and imperialistic past to one that works with the modern world. To have collapsed the monarchy would have caused a power vacuum and geopolitical instability as many groups of people would take advantage of the countries without the protection of the monarchy. Instead, we have seen many prosper in the stability of the Queen. As far as the financial impacts, you'll find that most land utilised by the UK government is owned by the Royal Estate and leased to the government. This is land they attained through historical conquests and unions via marriage, however lands they rightfully own - for the UK government to buy back the land from the Royal Estate and detangle the monarchy from the UK government would cost the British taxpayer billions more than the circumstances they have now. The Monarchy is also an extremely useful tourism institution, and assists the UK in billions of dollars a year in economic benefit from tourists sightseeing the Royal Estates, with accommodation in local hotels, eating food from local restaurants, going to local entertainment establishments while they are here. To consider the Monarchy is \"leeching\" from the British taxpayer overlooks the important uses the Monarchy has for the Government, Tourism, and the International Community as a whole. To say they deserve worship? Probably no more deserving than any one might worship any other Head of State. I think from a realistic point of view, the Monarchy isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and it is extremely useful in keeping geopolitical stability and that's what keeps them around. They have a duty as the monarchs of the constitutions they're involved with, and will continue to fulfill those duties as Queen Elizabeth II did for her decades of reigning - if they were to neglect or overstep those duties, you might have cause for removing the Monarchy, but until then, they're a useful tool in the ebb and flow of geopolitics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3328.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwckzx","c_root_id_B":"ipwdelj","created_at_utc_A":1664144528,"created_at_utc_B":1664144897,"score_A":9,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"What about African kings. The one who rounded up black Africans and sold them to the slave trade. Meaghan is reportedly a bully and a snob who wanted people to bow down. In a bossy bitchy way. She played her hand all wrong. She could have gotten what she wanted, but her personality sucks, so she fucked op her chance of pwming the brits","human_ref_B":"No one is arguing that the Monarchy isn't a racist or classist institution. Every democratic country is built on the backs of slaves, and it doesn't make it right by just saying it. That being said, the UK was one of the first countries in the world to ban slavery, and since then been a proponent of freeing slaves whenever possible. As far as the necessity for the monarchy, it's a historical institution that has some level of power then chosen to wield it. For example, in the 1970's, the Queen toured New Zealand and spoke out against the rights of native Maori of the South Island in a single sentence - since then, no-one has spoken against the rights of Maori. Since George VI, the British Empire was disestablished and replaced with the Commonwealth, as the British stepped away from Israel and India. These were very clear failures however, that led to the Palestinian and Pakistani conflicts we see even today. Since Elizabeth II's reign, we've seen a dozen countries step away from the Monarchy peacefully and without violence. Even when Nigeria declared themselves a Republic, Elizabeth II wrote them a letter wishing them well on their newfound sovereignty, even though they've had self-determination for decades. If you look back the last 70 years, you'll find the Queen in fact reformed the monarchy from its racist and imperialistic past to one that works with the modern world. To have collapsed the monarchy would have caused a power vacuum and geopolitical instability as many groups of people would take advantage of the countries without the protection of the monarchy. Instead, we have seen many prosper in the stability of the Queen. As far as the financial impacts, you'll find that most land utilised by the UK government is owned by the Royal Estate and leased to the government. This is land they attained through historical conquests and unions via marriage, however lands they rightfully own - for the UK government to buy back the land from the Royal Estate and detangle the monarchy from the UK government would cost the British taxpayer billions more than the circumstances they have now. The Monarchy is also an extremely useful tourism institution, and assists the UK in billions of dollars a year in economic benefit from tourists sightseeing the Royal Estates, with accommodation in local hotels, eating food from local restaurants, going to local entertainment establishments while they are here. To consider the Monarchy is \"leeching\" from the British taxpayer overlooks the important uses the Monarchy has for the Government, Tourism, and the International Community as a whole. To say they deserve worship? Probably no more deserving than any one might worship any other Head of State. I think from a realistic point of view, the Monarchy isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and it is extremely useful in keeping geopolitical stability and that's what keeps them around. They have a duty as the monarchs of the constitutions they're involved with, and will continue to fulfill those duties as Queen Elizabeth II did for her decades of reigning - if they were to neglect or overstep those duties, you might have cause for removing the Monarchy, but until then, they're a useful tool in the ebb and flow of geopolitics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":369.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipy2nz6","c_root_id_B":"ipw5pda","created_at_utc_A":1664179145,"created_at_utc_B":1664141569,"score_A":14,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their minds. And the Royal Family has every right to be upset by it, just as the public has every right to judge Harry and Meghan, and the Royal Family has every right to feel betrayed at Harry and Meghan for airing the family\u2019s interpersonal conflicts. Basically, they\u2019re no different from the Kardashians or any other celebrity family that goes after each other in public. Frankly, I find any public, personal conflict pathetic. If you\u2019ve got issues, deal with it in-house. Not to \u2018cover it up\u2019, but because _every_ family has their disagreements, and those disagreements come with baggage and reference to personal relationship history that the public are ignorant of, and it\u2019s just pathetic and trashy. It screams \u201clook at me!!\u201d Harry\u2019s not \u2018 financially independently\u2019, he\u2019s living off his several million pounds inheritance he received when Diana died. Where do you think _that_ money came from? He shoves that in a bank and can live off the interest. He\u2019s not exactly cutting himself off from every advantage and privilege he\u2019s ever had and getting a full-time job at McDonalds. In fact, he\u2019s doing exactly what you\u2019re accusing the rest of the Royal Family of doing, he\u2019s just not doing it in England. He\u2019s instead moving to Canada, which, hey, is part of the British Commonwealth! where he will continue to live among the privileged and be treated as a Royal. So his \u2018escape\u2019 is nowhere near as earth-shattering or as independent as you seem to think it is. The role of the monarch in British Government is vastly misunderstood by both British citizens, and especially those who aren\u2019t a part of the \u2018British Empire\u2019. Consider Obamacare: President Obama tried to implement a new healthcare system, modelled on that of other Western countries, which would allow for free healthcare. As soon as Trump came to power, he did everything he could to dismantle and tear that system down. Then another President may come in and try to rebuild it, and so on and so on. Wasting millions, maybe even billions of dollars that could be better used elsewhere. The British Monarch is the final arbiter of such things, and could prevent such cavalier action and spending by politely requesting Parliament reconsider their plan, and provide a better, more fiscally responsible plan. This forces the government to act _for the people_ and not solely for themselves. This is just one example of the role the British Monarch plays in government. But the main one you\u2019re overlooking, which is the most important role within the government, is _diplomacy._ People always overlook and dismiss diplomacy when it is the exact thing that keeps human society turning. When diplomacy breaks down, war occurs. The monarch and their family are the ultimate diplomats; their presence can cement a union, and their absence can reinforce just how desperate a situation has become. From the other side, being part of the British Commonwealth under the banner of the British Monarch is what keep some counties from completely failing. Australia is an example of a country that is dependant on their ties to the crown and the monarch. And I say that as (among others) a proud Australian. Politically, commercially, internationally: Australia would be screwed if they tried to obtain independence, and if the monarchy were abolished, Australia would be even more screwed. So it\u2019s not just Britain that benefits from the Royal Family. If the monarchy were dissolved, many small countries would be absolutely screwed. And last but not least, the British Monarchy does make money for the country through the tourism they attract, not all the properties they are associated with are privately owned by the family and are instead owned by the government, and in a break down of taxes a study found that only about \u00a34.50 per year per citizen goes towards the Royals, and the Royal Family earn FAR MORE than that per person per year in their tourism alone. Also, the Queen paid her taxes when she didn\u2019t have to; I dunno what Charlie will do, but I like to think he\u2019d do the right thing and continue that tradition. The modern Royal Family are not autocrats. They never really have been. And when they tried to be, well, England had its own civil war which resulted in a revolution and the removal of the monarchy. But then the government realised Cromwell was no better than the Stuarts, and in fact was actually turning out to be worse, they realised that a monarch they could work _with_, such as they\u2019d had before, was better than an autocratic ruler. So the British Government outsourced a new King and Queen in the form of King William of Orange. Remember, it\u2019s a _Constitutional_ Monarchy. There are other countries with far more powerful monarchs who also don\u2019t take advantage of their subjects. A dictator is far worse than a monarch in the modern world.","human_ref_B":"The Royal family is a symbolic institution. Especially for the monarch, though it comes with a huge amount of wealth and privilege they have to sacrifice there whole life for the institution, to the point they can't even publicly have a opinion. For the institution to have any meaning it has to be traditional and some what put on a pedestal. The second it looses that it becomes somewhat redundant. Though I have no problem with Harry and Megan quitting (Harry atleast never chose to be part of it) the problem I have is that they didn't go and do there own thing, there thing has become \"exposing the Royal family\". They quitt to have a \"normal quiet life\" and seem to just be attracting as much attention as possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37576.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwik0o","c_root_id_B":"ipy2nz6","created_at_utc_A":1664147173,"created_at_utc_B":1664179145,"score_A":10,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Well everyone already commented on how your historical and financial aspects are wrong, so i will respond on a more personal level. Im a second generation minority in a former colony country that still have them as symbolic heads of state. I like it. I dont have strong roots with my parents country of origin. I can speak the mother tongue somewhat fluently but not enough that i will be one of them. To my own people i am an outsider. But in my former colony country i feel that connection to the monarchy. I am proud that my country decided to become independant from them through decades of finding our national identity but still recognizing the heritage and culture that the british empire gave us. Im not going to be buying commemorative plates or waving the union jack but i like the monarchy. people really make this into too big a deal. Sure im sure there were problematic moments in its history. As every country has. Its not fair to hold them to 2022 standards. They dont really have any power. Theyre just mascots.","human_ref_B":"Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their minds. And the Royal Family has every right to be upset by it, just as the public has every right to judge Harry and Meghan, and the Royal Family has every right to feel betrayed at Harry and Meghan for airing the family\u2019s interpersonal conflicts. Basically, they\u2019re no different from the Kardashians or any other celebrity family that goes after each other in public. Frankly, I find any public, personal conflict pathetic. If you\u2019ve got issues, deal with it in-house. Not to \u2018cover it up\u2019, but because _every_ family has their disagreements, and those disagreements come with baggage and reference to personal relationship history that the public are ignorant of, and it\u2019s just pathetic and trashy. It screams \u201clook at me!!\u201d Harry\u2019s not \u2018 financially independently\u2019, he\u2019s living off his several million pounds inheritance he received when Diana died. Where do you think _that_ money came from? He shoves that in a bank and can live off the interest. He\u2019s not exactly cutting himself off from every advantage and privilege he\u2019s ever had and getting a full-time job at McDonalds. In fact, he\u2019s doing exactly what you\u2019re accusing the rest of the Royal Family of doing, he\u2019s just not doing it in England. He\u2019s instead moving to Canada, which, hey, is part of the British Commonwealth! where he will continue to live among the privileged and be treated as a Royal. So his \u2018escape\u2019 is nowhere near as earth-shattering or as independent as you seem to think it is. The role of the monarch in British Government is vastly misunderstood by both British citizens, and especially those who aren\u2019t a part of the \u2018British Empire\u2019. Consider Obamacare: President Obama tried to implement a new healthcare system, modelled on that of other Western countries, which would allow for free healthcare. As soon as Trump came to power, he did everything he could to dismantle and tear that system down. Then another President may come in and try to rebuild it, and so on and so on. Wasting millions, maybe even billions of dollars that could be better used elsewhere. The British Monarch is the final arbiter of such things, and could prevent such cavalier action and spending by politely requesting Parliament reconsider their plan, and provide a better, more fiscally responsible plan. This forces the government to act _for the people_ and not solely for themselves. This is just one example of the role the British Monarch plays in government. But the main one you\u2019re overlooking, which is the most important role within the government, is _diplomacy._ People always overlook and dismiss diplomacy when it is the exact thing that keeps human society turning. When diplomacy breaks down, war occurs. The monarch and their family are the ultimate diplomats; their presence can cement a union, and their absence can reinforce just how desperate a situation has become. From the other side, being part of the British Commonwealth under the banner of the British Monarch is what keep some counties from completely failing. Australia is an example of a country that is dependant on their ties to the crown and the monarch. And I say that as (among others) a proud Australian. Politically, commercially, internationally: Australia would be screwed if they tried to obtain independence, and if the monarchy were abolished, Australia would be even more screwed. So it\u2019s not just Britain that benefits from the Royal Family. If the monarchy were dissolved, many small countries would be absolutely screwed. And last but not least, the British Monarchy does make money for the country through the tourism they attract, not all the properties they are associated with are privately owned by the family and are instead owned by the government, and in a break down of taxes a study found that only about \u00a34.50 per year per citizen goes towards the Royals, and the Royal Family earn FAR MORE than that per person per year in their tourism alone. Also, the Queen paid her taxes when she didn\u2019t have to; I dunno what Charlie will do, but I like to think he\u2019d do the right thing and continue that tradition. The modern Royal Family are not autocrats. They never really have been. And when they tried to be, well, England had its own civil war which resulted in a revolution and the removal of the monarchy. But then the government realised Cromwell was no better than the Stuarts, and in fact was actually turning out to be worse, they realised that a monarch they could work _with_, such as they\u2019d had before, was better than an autocratic ruler. So the British Government outsourced a new King and Queen in the form of King William of Orange. Remember, it\u2019s a _Constitutional_ Monarchy. There are other countries with far more powerful monarchs who also don\u2019t take advantage of their subjects. A dictator is far worse than a monarch in the modern world.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31972.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwckzx","c_root_id_B":"ipy2nz6","created_at_utc_A":1664144528,"created_at_utc_B":1664179145,"score_A":9,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"What about African kings. The one who rounded up black Africans and sold them to the slave trade. Meaghan is reportedly a bully and a snob who wanted people to bow down. In a bossy bitchy way. She played her hand all wrong. She could have gotten what she wanted, but her personality sucks, so she fucked op her chance of pwming the brits","human_ref_B":"Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their minds. And the Royal Family has every right to be upset by it, just as the public has every right to judge Harry and Meghan, and the Royal Family has every right to feel betrayed at Harry and Meghan for airing the family\u2019s interpersonal conflicts. Basically, they\u2019re no different from the Kardashians or any other celebrity family that goes after each other in public. Frankly, I find any public, personal conflict pathetic. If you\u2019ve got issues, deal with it in-house. Not to \u2018cover it up\u2019, but because _every_ family has their disagreements, and those disagreements come with baggage and reference to personal relationship history that the public are ignorant of, and it\u2019s just pathetic and trashy. It screams \u201clook at me!!\u201d Harry\u2019s not \u2018 financially independently\u2019, he\u2019s living off his several million pounds inheritance he received when Diana died. Where do you think _that_ money came from? He shoves that in a bank and can live off the interest. He\u2019s not exactly cutting himself off from every advantage and privilege he\u2019s ever had and getting a full-time job at McDonalds. In fact, he\u2019s doing exactly what you\u2019re accusing the rest of the Royal Family of doing, he\u2019s just not doing it in England. He\u2019s instead moving to Canada, which, hey, is part of the British Commonwealth! where he will continue to live among the privileged and be treated as a Royal. So his \u2018escape\u2019 is nowhere near as earth-shattering or as independent as you seem to think it is. The role of the monarch in British Government is vastly misunderstood by both British citizens, and especially those who aren\u2019t a part of the \u2018British Empire\u2019. Consider Obamacare: President Obama tried to implement a new healthcare system, modelled on that of other Western countries, which would allow for free healthcare. As soon as Trump came to power, he did everything he could to dismantle and tear that system down. Then another President may come in and try to rebuild it, and so on and so on. Wasting millions, maybe even billions of dollars that could be better used elsewhere. The British Monarch is the final arbiter of such things, and could prevent such cavalier action and spending by politely requesting Parliament reconsider their plan, and provide a better, more fiscally responsible plan. This forces the government to act _for the people_ and not solely for themselves. This is just one example of the role the British Monarch plays in government. But the main one you\u2019re overlooking, which is the most important role within the government, is _diplomacy._ People always overlook and dismiss diplomacy when it is the exact thing that keeps human society turning. When diplomacy breaks down, war occurs. The monarch and their family are the ultimate diplomats; their presence can cement a union, and their absence can reinforce just how desperate a situation has become. From the other side, being part of the British Commonwealth under the banner of the British Monarch is what keep some counties from completely failing. Australia is an example of a country that is dependant on their ties to the crown and the monarch. And I say that as (among others) a proud Australian. Politically, commercially, internationally: Australia would be screwed if they tried to obtain independence, and if the monarchy were abolished, Australia would be even more screwed. So it\u2019s not just Britain that benefits from the Royal Family. If the monarchy were dissolved, many small countries would be absolutely screwed. And last but not least, the British Monarchy does make money for the country through the tourism they attract, not all the properties they are associated with are privately owned by the family and are instead owned by the government, and in a break down of taxes a study found that only about \u00a34.50 per year per citizen goes towards the Royals, and the Royal Family earn FAR MORE than that per person per year in their tourism alone. Also, the Queen paid her taxes when she didn\u2019t have to; I dunno what Charlie will do, but I like to think he\u2019d do the right thing and continue that tradition. The modern Royal Family are not autocrats. They never really have been. And when they tried to be, well, England had its own civil war which resulted in a revolution and the removal of the monarchy. But then the government realised Cromwell was no better than the Stuarts, and in fact was actually turning out to be worse, they realised that a monarch they could work _with_, such as they\u2019d had before, was better than an autocratic ruler. So the British Government outsourced a new King and Queen in the form of King William of Orange. Remember, it\u2019s a _Constitutional_ Monarchy. There are other countries with far more powerful monarchs who also don\u2019t take advantage of their subjects. A dictator is far worse than a monarch in the modern world.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34617.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipxp0ek","c_root_id_B":"ipy2nz6","created_at_utc_A":1664168444,"created_at_utc_B":1664179145,"score_A":8,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Meghan\u2026 I ain\u2019t sayin\u2019 she a gold digger\u2026.","human_ref_B":"Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their minds. And the Royal Family has every right to be upset by it, just as the public has every right to judge Harry and Meghan, and the Royal Family has every right to feel betrayed at Harry and Meghan for airing the family\u2019s interpersonal conflicts. Basically, they\u2019re no different from the Kardashians or any other celebrity family that goes after each other in public. Frankly, I find any public, personal conflict pathetic. If you\u2019ve got issues, deal with it in-house. Not to \u2018cover it up\u2019, but because _every_ family has their disagreements, and those disagreements come with baggage and reference to personal relationship history that the public are ignorant of, and it\u2019s just pathetic and trashy. It screams \u201clook at me!!\u201d Harry\u2019s not \u2018 financially independently\u2019, he\u2019s living off his several million pounds inheritance he received when Diana died. Where do you think _that_ money came from? He shoves that in a bank and can live off the interest. He\u2019s not exactly cutting himself off from every advantage and privilege he\u2019s ever had and getting a full-time job at McDonalds. In fact, he\u2019s doing exactly what you\u2019re accusing the rest of the Royal Family of doing, he\u2019s just not doing it in England. He\u2019s instead moving to Canada, which, hey, is part of the British Commonwealth! where he will continue to live among the privileged and be treated as a Royal. So his \u2018escape\u2019 is nowhere near as earth-shattering or as independent as you seem to think it is. The role of the monarch in British Government is vastly misunderstood by both British citizens, and especially those who aren\u2019t a part of the \u2018British Empire\u2019. Consider Obamacare: President Obama tried to implement a new healthcare system, modelled on that of other Western countries, which would allow for free healthcare. As soon as Trump came to power, he did everything he could to dismantle and tear that system down. Then another President may come in and try to rebuild it, and so on and so on. Wasting millions, maybe even billions of dollars that could be better used elsewhere. The British Monarch is the final arbiter of such things, and could prevent such cavalier action and spending by politely requesting Parliament reconsider their plan, and provide a better, more fiscally responsible plan. This forces the government to act _for the people_ and not solely for themselves. This is just one example of the role the British Monarch plays in government. But the main one you\u2019re overlooking, which is the most important role within the government, is _diplomacy._ People always overlook and dismiss diplomacy when it is the exact thing that keeps human society turning. When diplomacy breaks down, war occurs. The monarch and their family are the ultimate diplomats; their presence can cement a union, and their absence can reinforce just how desperate a situation has become. From the other side, being part of the British Commonwealth under the banner of the British Monarch is what keep some counties from completely failing. Australia is an example of a country that is dependant on their ties to the crown and the monarch. And I say that as (among others) a proud Australian. Politically, commercially, internationally: Australia would be screwed if they tried to obtain independence, and if the monarchy were abolished, Australia would be even more screwed. So it\u2019s not just Britain that benefits from the Royal Family. If the monarchy were dissolved, many small countries would be absolutely screwed. And last but not least, the British Monarchy does make money for the country through the tourism they attract, not all the properties they are associated with are privately owned by the family and are instead owned by the government, and in a break down of taxes a study found that only about \u00a34.50 per year per citizen goes towards the Royals, and the Royal Family earn FAR MORE than that per person per year in their tourism alone. Also, the Queen paid her taxes when she didn\u2019t have to; I dunno what Charlie will do, but I like to think he\u2019d do the right thing and continue that tradition. The modern Royal Family are not autocrats. They never really have been. And when they tried to be, well, England had its own civil war which resulted in a revolution and the removal of the monarchy. But then the government realised Cromwell was no better than the Stuarts, and in fact was actually turning out to be worse, they realised that a monarch they could work _with_, such as they\u2019d had before, was better than an autocratic ruler. So the British Government outsourced a new King and Queen in the form of King William of Orange. Remember, it\u2019s a _Constitutional_ Monarchy. There are other countries with far more powerful monarchs who also don\u2019t take advantage of their subjects. A dictator is far worse than a monarch in the modern world.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10701.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"xnwpqu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The UK royal family are an outdated and racist institution. Meghan and Harry have every right to speak their mind about the family. I've seen a lot of threads complaining about religion lately but I find the honour and reverence people have for the royal family equally as ridiculous. First of all, their wealth and legacy is built on the idea that they are somehow superior to everyone else which in a way makes them as an institution racist and classist by default. The more honour and respect we show them, the more we encourage that ridiculous notion. They are not in any way superior to anyone else. Historically they have profited from the black slave trade and continue to leech off of taxpayers, despite contributing very little to society nowadays. I mean the Queen's funeral cost over a billion dollars, money that could've been spent elsewhere. Meghan Markle had every right to call them out. I'm not saying I believe every word she said. I'm just saying she has every right to tell her side of the story. The only reason people are angry with her and Harry is because speaking out about the family's problems ruins the illusion of the family's superiority. They try to silence anyone that speaks out. Princess Diana went through a similar thing God forbid anyone reveals that they have flaws and are just regular human beings. Harry and Meghan deserve more credit for trying to distance themselves from the family. According to the Sovereign report, they were the only members that chose to be financially independent and not profit from taxpayers. What would change my mind? If someone can explain to me their relevance and contributions to today's society and that those contributions are enough to warrant the kind of respect and worship they get.","c_root_id_A":"ipwckzx","c_root_id_B":"ipwik0o","created_at_utc_A":1664144528,"created_at_utc_B":1664147173,"score_A":9,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"What about African kings. The one who rounded up black Africans and sold them to the slave trade. Meaghan is reportedly a bully and a snob who wanted people to bow down. In a bossy bitchy way. She played her hand all wrong. She could have gotten what she wanted, but her personality sucks, so she fucked op her chance of pwming the brits","human_ref_B":"Well everyone already commented on how your historical and financial aspects are wrong, so i will respond on a more personal level. Im a second generation minority in a former colony country that still have them as symbolic heads of state. I like it. I dont have strong roots with my parents country of origin. I can speak the mother tongue somewhat fluently but not enough that i will be one of them. To my own people i am an outsider. But in my former colony country i feel that connection to the monarchy. I am proud that my country decided to become independant from them through decades of finding our national identity but still recognizing the heritage and culture that the british empire gave us. Im not going to be buying commemorative plates or waving the union jack but i like the monarchy. people really make this into too big a deal. Sure im sure there were problematic moments in its history. As every country has. Its not fair to hold them to 2022 standards. They dont really have any power. Theyre just mascots.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2645.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111} {"post_id":"1kuh4q","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"I don't think that there is a problem with cultural appropriation and in fact I think it's offensive to tell someone what they can and cannot wear\/do because they are not from a specific culture. CMV. I see people getting up in arms about white girls who wear feather headdresses and to some degree I understand that given the history of native americans and white colonists, but I truly don't get (music artist) Grimes' fans who got upset because she wore a sari. I'm Vietnamese, and if people just started wearing Ao Dai I certainly wouldn't be offended, I would actually think it's pretty cool. I can only assume I'm missing some key component of the idea because getting upset at someone because they're wearing clothing that has a different cultural origin than they do seems pretty ridiculous. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cbsrne4","c_root_id_B":"cbsrgvx","created_at_utc_A":1377141539,"created_at_utc_B":1377141022,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Yeah, Social Justice types who police others on appropriation are annoying. I actually agree with their arguments about commodification of culture, race and the marginalization... but my ability to care is pretty low. But: ...I'll just show you why appropriation is really, really annoying to me. White women wearing the sari. \"That's great! They're SoooOOOoo cool. And cultured. And so hip! Look at all the *~pretty~* colours. And they have that little red dot on their head and so beautiful. My mom wearing a sari? \"Oh, look at that paki who drives a taxi. I'll speak to her super slowly because she can't speak English\". Imagine if someone comes up to you and is like \"Your white girl Stacery is eating Pho. And using chop sticks! Isn't that so awesome, she's so cooooool because of this. She's like azn inside\" meanwhile you've been doing that since day 1. And no one really cared :P","human_ref_B":"The theory is that those who use ideas foreign to their culture have only a surface interest in the cultures presented, and their piracy can be toxic to the culture represented. And let's be honest - many first world folk are very guilty of the crime. Remember when Elvis used black sound, to become famous while all the black artists who inspired him were left behind? Or all the gangster rap fans who wear African and Jamaican pride drag without sending any money back there? (Source: Older people from those countries, with a lot of time to rant about Americans.) Of course, most of the cultural appropriation bullshit is made up of traditionalists waging a culture war. And a lot of it is carefully disguised nationalism\/racism\/fundamentalism using the language of social justice. Although the sins of the past must never be forgotten, the people pushing all of this would rather they were never forgiven, either. Which is understandable, since there are new sins every day. And too often, they're told to shut up about them by people who look the other fucking way. But pretend to care. Whether you agree with their arguments, or like me, are really sick of those possessed by hate on all sides not being called on their bullshit... Think of traditional clothing as a uniform...since those who wear traditional clothing treat it that way anyways. The endless culture wars are only going to intensify now that the world finally needs to face itself. Ultimately - The line in the sand has been drawn. If you wish to shock and offend, or don't give a shit what culture someone else has decided you belong to - wear whatever you want. But just be aware that there will be a problem, because more than a few people have now decided it's a problem. They demand we respect the boundaries they've created between us. And when humanity finally grows up and gets over this problem, it'll find another one to obsess over. It's just the way of the world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":517.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1kuh4q","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"I don't think that there is a problem with cultural appropriation and in fact I think it's offensive to tell someone what they can and cannot wear\/do because they are not from a specific culture. CMV. I see people getting up in arms about white girls who wear feather headdresses and to some degree I understand that given the history of native americans and white colonists, but I truly don't get (music artist) Grimes' fans who got upset because she wore a sari. I'm Vietnamese, and if people just started wearing Ao Dai I certainly wouldn't be offended, I would actually think it's pretty cool. I can only assume I'm missing some key component of the idea because getting upset at someone because they're wearing clothing that has a different cultural origin than they do seems pretty ridiculous. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cbsrgvx","c_root_id_B":"cbsuhlb","created_at_utc_A":1377141022,"created_at_utc_B":1377150828,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The theory is that those who use ideas foreign to their culture have only a surface interest in the cultures presented, and their piracy can be toxic to the culture represented. And let's be honest - many first world folk are very guilty of the crime. Remember when Elvis used black sound, to become famous while all the black artists who inspired him were left behind? Or all the gangster rap fans who wear African and Jamaican pride drag without sending any money back there? (Source: Older people from those countries, with a lot of time to rant about Americans.) Of course, most of the cultural appropriation bullshit is made up of traditionalists waging a culture war. And a lot of it is carefully disguised nationalism\/racism\/fundamentalism using the language of social justice. Although the sins of the past must never be forgotten, the people pushing all of this would rather they were never forgiven, either. Which is understandable, since there are new sins every day. And too often, they're told to shut up about them by people who look the other fucking way. But pretend to care. Whether you agree with their arguments, or like me, are really sick of those possessed by hate on all sides not being called on their bullshit... Think of traditional clothing as a uniform...since those who wear traditional clothing treat it that way anyways. The endless culture wars are only going to intensify now that the world finally needs to face itself. Ultimately - The line in the sand has been drawn. If you wish to shock and offend, or don't give a shit what culture someone else has decided you belong to - wear whatever you want. But just be aware that there will be a problem, because more than a few people have now decided it's a problem. They demand we respect the boundaries they've created between us. And when humanity finally grows up and gets over this problem, it'll find another one to obsess over. It's just the way of the world.","human_ref_B":"I think the best way to see why it's wrong is to flip it on its head. Imagine for a second that Christianity wasn't the dominant religion in America. Now imagine if some stronger, more powerful culture came in and decided to appropriate the Christian cross. Non-Christians started putting them on bilboards, wearing them on T-shirts, and claiming that they \"just love'' the idea of Christianity, but not embody the true spirit of it. Imagine if kids made rainbow crosses, started running around and saying \"look daddy, I'm Jesus!\" faking being nailed to the cross. And everybody who comes across you wants to ask you very stereotypical questions like \"I heard all you Christians like to nail each other to the cross, is that true?\" Christians would feel marginalized and upset by it. Now imagine that they were powerless to do anything about it, and whenever they brought it up, people just called them complainers. The society reinforces on a daily basis that they don't get a say in how their religion is portrayed. Would they not have a right to be upset? Of course they would, because nobody likes being marginalized and having no ability to dictate the way that their lives are. You may claim to think it's pretty cool that people start wearing Ao Dai, but the second someone does something with your culture that you don't like, and you don't have any power to have a say in it, you would probably get pretty pissed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9806.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"w4b819","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Being bullied for one's culture doesn't entitle someone to be angry at 'cultural appropriation' committed by random , unknown individuals later in life. I often see this argument play out in discussions about cultural appropriation. In the minor furore about prom attire, kimonos and chongsam dresses this argument came to particular prominence. In brief, the idea goes that someone who was bullied for various facets of Asian-ness, especially by dominant members of the white culture, would rightfully be furious to see white people trying to take part in or gain attention by doing something Asian, like wearing a kimono\/chongsam. I find this view incredibly unreasonable. Now, if someone were bullied for their Chinese lunchbox, or love of Chinese pop music as a child, were to then see the very same bully dressing up in a sexy Chinese dress for online likes, they are perfectly entitled to be angry, and to call out their bullies on this shameful hypocrisy. I would encourage any former bullying victim to call out their oppressors and shame them for their past behaviour. However, taking out their rage on strangers, who ought to be presumed to be innnocent, is totally irrational and incoherent. While there is every reason to be annoyed that someone who wronged you is now 'stealing your culture' there is no reason to assume that a total stranger isn't doing something completely blameless. Maybe the person is just an ignorant bully, pouring themselves into a tight Chinese dress for attention. Maybe they were gifted the dress while studying abroad in Taipei for a year. Maybe they have a Chinese sister in law who encouraged them to wear it. Maybe they just thought it was cool. Whatever, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Calling them out and assuming malice is simply enabling a cycle of rage, prejudice and negativity to go on forever. If say, some random individual was bullied by the 'normal', athletic, handsome cohort at school for loving Marvel comics, is now decades later, enraged by the good looking, sporty, normies loving the Marvel movies, and spitting feathers on Twitter about the issue, we'd quite rightly see them as a bitter, twisted loser. Ultimately, its reasonable to be angry with an individual or group of individuals for hypocritically changing their approach to your culture. It's not reasonable to be angry with an identity group as a whole. The further issue I have with this topic, is the assumption that any traditonal garb is necessarily tied up with a deep cultural meaning strongly attached to that culture. Yes, there are some outfits like this. For instance a Thai monk's orange robes - it would be completely innappropriate for wear this while drinking, smoking and trying to hook up. However, a kimono and a cheongsam are not really much more than fancy clothes to wear for formal occasions or when one wishes to look attractive. Visitors to China, Taiwan, Japan et al will find these items for sale in tourist markets, or offered for rental for photoshoots. Assuming there is something more at play, or that there some deeper meaning that can't be understood by people who don't belong to the culture is playing into racial assumptions about 'exoticness' in Asia. As one more aside, it often comes up that people in Japan really loved white Americans wearing kimonos. This is quickly rebuffed with people saying that 'Asian American's' deserve to have more of a say and be listened to, they're the ones being hurt. Now, if you're Japanese American, fair enough - have your say. If you're Chinese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese American etc then you should not be commenting on this issue whatsoever. It has nothing to do with you or your culture. In fact, it's subtly projecting the idea that Asians 'are all the same'","c_root_id_A":"ih0yola","c_root_id_B":"ih0yuxy","created_at_utc_A":1658392804,"created_at_utc_B":1658392946,"score_A":6,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":">I often see this argument play out in discussions about cultural appropriation. Can you show us some examples of this so we have a concrete idea of what you're talking about? Since this argument is core to your post, it's necessary for us to read at least one instance of it to properly evaluate your view.","human_ref_B":"The point of saying \"I was bullied for being Chinese as a child and now my peers are wearing kimonos,\" is not that the person here feels some personal vindication in hating appropriation because they personally were bullied. It is to illustrate why cultural appropriation is problematic - because the dominant culture denigrates as it takes. Cheongsams are cool and attractive, but being chinese still attracts ridicule and mockery from the dominant culture. The logical suggestion of that juxtaposition is that when a cheongsam becomes cool, it becomes *not chinese*, because chinese is not cool. It becomes divorced entirely from cultural origin in the popular consciousness of the dominant culture, or, worse, retains that association only vaguely so that it can be deployed as a hurtful stereotype of the cultural context it once came from.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":142.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"w4b819","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Being bullied for one's culture doesn't entitle someone to be angry at 'cultural appropriation' committed by random , unknown individuals later in life. I often see this argument play out in discussions about cultural appropriation. In the minor furore about prom attire, kimonos and chongsam dresses this argument came to particular prominence. In brief, the idea goes that someone who was bullied for various facets of Asian-ness, especially by dominant members of the white culture, would rightfully be furious to see white people trying to take part in or gain attention by doing something Asian, like wearing a kimono\/chongsam. I find this view incredibly unreasonable. Now, if someone were bullied for their Chinese lunchbox, or love of Chinese pop music as a child, were to then see the very same bully dressing up in a sexy Chinese dress for online likes, they are perfectly entitled to be angry, and to call out their bullies on this shameful hypocrisy. I would encourage any former bullying victim to call out their oppressors and shame them for their past behaviour. However, taking out their rage on strangers, who ought to be presumed to be innnocent, is totally irrational and incoherent. While there is every reason to be annoyed that someone who wronged you is now 'stealing your culture' there is no reason to assume that a total stranger isn't doing something completely blameless. Maybe the person is just an ignorant bully, pouring themselves into a tight Chinese dress for attention. Maybe they were gifted the dress while studying abroad in Taipei for a year. Maybe they have a Chinese sister in law who encouraged them to wear it. Maybe they just thought it was cool. Whatever, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Calling them out and assuming malice is simply enabling a cycle of rage, prejudice and negativity to go on forever. If say, some random individual was bullied by the 'normal', athletic, handsome cohort at school for loving Marvel comics, is now decades later, enraged by the good looking, sporty, normies loving the Marvel movies, and spitting feathers on Twitter about the issue, we'd quite rightly see them as a bitter, twisted loser. Ultimately, its reasonable to be angry with an individual or group of individuals for hypocritically changing their approach to your culture. It's not reasonable to be angry with an identity group as a whole. The further issue I have with this topic, is the assumption that any traditonal garb is necessarily tied up with a deep cultural meaning strongly attached to that culture. Yes, there are some outfits like this. For instance a Thai monk's orange robes - it would be completely innappropriate for wear this while drinking, smoking and trying to hook up. However, a kimono and a cheongsam are not really much more than fancy clothes to wear for formal occasions or when one wishes to look attractive. Visitors to China, Taiwan, Japan et al will find these items for sale in tourist markets, or offered for rental for photoshoots. Assuming there is something more at play, or that there some deeper meaning that can't be understood by people who don't belong to the culture is playing into racial assumptions about 'exoticness' in Asia. As one more aside, it often comes up that people in Japan really loved white Americans wearing kimonos. This is quickly rebuffed with people saying that 'Asian American's' deserve to have more of a say and be listened to, they're the ones being hurt. Now, if you're Japanese American, fair enough - have your say. If you're Chinese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese American etc then you should not be commenting on this issue whatsoever. It has nothing to do with you or your culture. In fact, it's subtly projecting the idea that Asians 'are all the same'","c_root_id_A":"ih0yola","c_root_id_B":"ih1msl4","created_at_utc_A":1658392804,"created_at_utc_B":1658408455,"score_A":6,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":">I often see this argument play out in discussions about cultural appropriation. Can you show us some examples of this so we have a concrete idea of what you're talking about? Since this argument is core to your post, it's necessary for us to read at least one instance of it to properly evaluate your view.","human_ref_B":">In the minor furore about prom attire, kimonos and chongsam dresses this argument came to particular prominence. In brief, the idea goes that someone who was bullied for various facets of Asian-ness, especially by dominant members of the white culture, would rightfully be furious to see white people trying to take part in or gain attention by doing something Asian, like wearing a kimono\/chongsam. This isn't what 'cultural appropriation' means... At points in your CMV, I think you are getting at the gist of it, e.g.,: >The further issue I have with this topic, is the assumption that any traditonal garb is necessarily tied up with a deep cultural meaning strongly attached to that culture.\r \r Yes, there are some outfits like this. For instance a Thai monk's orange robes - it would be completely innappropriate for wear this while drinking, smoking and trying to hook up. ... but overall, you're glossing over the fact that there is actually a real thing called cultural appropriation, that is not the thing that you're talking about. If your POV were, \"You shouldn't co-opt the idea of cultural appropriation to bully people for cultural appreciation,\" I'd be 100% with you; similarly, if it were, \"Trying to prevent people from engaging in cultural exchange because they've got the wrong skin color is racist,\" I'd have nothing to disagree with. If there were one thing I'd change about your view, it's this: it's easy to cross over from saying, \"This concept is misused,\" to saying, \"This concept is useless,\" and that's what you seem at points to be doing. Cultural appropriation is using another culture's artifacts and traditions in a way that *appropriates them* (that is, steals them and makes them no longer useable to that other culture). It's a simple test to apply, and most of the furor over \"cultural appropriation\" doesn't pass that test. A white girl wearing a kimono to prom is going to have zero effect on how Japanese culture interacts with the kimono. On the flip side, lots of cultural artifacts *have* been appropriated -- it certainly does happen. E.g., take the original controversy over 'war bonnets' being worn by white girls at coachella. You've got: * A symbol that's intended to be seen rarely and carry special significance in its wearer * That's intricately tied to a specific set of cultural traditions * That is intended to produce reverence and awe in adherents of those cultural traditions whenever they see it * That now most frequently appears on drunk 22 year olds Imagine if every drunk 22 year old you met were suddenly wearing a Congressional Medal of Honor that they bought for $14 on the internet. It will no longer produce the same awe and reverence that it once did, and it's not going to work well as the country's highest honor for much longer. That'd never happen to the dominant culture, because *everyone* the drunk 22 year old met would react with dismay -- but it *does* happen to extremely minority cultures.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15651.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667} {"post_id":"fpbsbm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The idea that we could be living in a computer simulation (which Elon Musk says is a near-absolute certainty) is completely absurd, even assuming any form of progress over an extremely long period of time. Elon Musk says we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Neil deGrasse Tyson and others assert this theory very strongly and it's apparently been an idea for quite some time, even among other well-known scientists\/philosophers. Very few major figures are coming out to say it's unlikely as far as I can tell. I want to begin by saying I have little STEM expertise, so I don't want to sound arrogant by pretending I know better than any of these people (I don't). Still, I just don't buy this theory for many reasons. Now I'll proceed: I believe there is a point at which human progress will practically plateau, and that there's a good chance the most intense stretch of fundamental discoveries (relevant to being able to simulate a reality) has probably already occurred. Take a look at this list: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Timeline\\_of\\_scientific\\_discoveries 1. People keep saying that on a long enough timeline, anything within the known laws of theoretical physics, including a computing system to power a simulation of our entire universe\/reality can be achieved, even if we can't fathom it yet. But focus on the list. You'll notice that between 0 AD and 1500 AD, there are many important scientific and mathematical discoveries, but nowhere near the amount that there are in each subsequent century alone. I would say the early 1800s through 1950 saw the largest spike in proven theories\/discoveries that fundamentally altered our understanding of matter, physics, chemistry, etc. and way of life than any period... including the last half century, which is where I'm getting to my point. Over the last 70 years since then the discoveries we have made were a lot less impactful\/groundbreaking - just looking at the timeline, there is a sign our society is clearly advancing... but does anyone think that we are going to see bigger discoveries than those of atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclear fission, etc. or the theory of relativity\/the big bang in our lifetimes or future generations? My conclusion is that the **largest leaps and bounds of progress are made in relatively small periods of time** and we may have passed the most impactful period already. This is probably because one key discovery leads to another related one, and soon we have a wave of interconnected advancements that transform our entire knowledge of a subject - i.e. the three\/four laws of thermodynamics being discovered so closely and some simultaneously - to a point where we already know the vast majority that we can fully discern. 2. Now let's focus on **one particular area as a sort of metaphor**: In less than 2 decades, we went from no space exploration to the first satellite, first man in space, and first man on the moon. It's been 50 years since then, and we don't know if we'll get a man on Mars by 2040 let alone an actual colonization. Yes, yes... reaching Mars is far more difficult and complicated... but are we expecting mankind to expand into and\/or colonize the solar system, our galaxy\/other galaxies, other life-sustaining planets, and keep going... or will we get to a point where we realize we don't have the resources, it isn't worth the gargantuan amount of time\/effort, or maybe it even gets to a point where it's practically impossible? I'm an optimist but the more we look at the logistics of accomplishing these things, the more they seem like far-out science fiction than something mankind can do. We may not have a limit per se, but there's a plateau at which certain things are just beyond our grasp. 3. I'll **extrapolate my metaphor\/example** to the simulation theory: There have been many huge advancements in computing power over the last 100 years. But for a computer simulation to exist, it would have to simulate matter on the smallest levels, not just cells, not just atoms, not just protons\/electrons\/neutrons, but quarks - which we can tell theoretically exist but know almost nothing else about. Oh, and what about dark matter? It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. It would have to simulate our entire universe, so large it is practically impossible to comprehend, and all of its astronomical bodies. I can probably go on - but to get to the main argument: I don't see mankind able to replicate such a mind-boggling reality at some point, even millennia from now. Unless we discover a new, groundbreaking law of theoretical physics or mathematical computing that has been hiding under our noses undetected for so long while all the other major laws of the universe are proven, I don't see a computer simulation of a reality like ours being in the realm of possibility. Can someone please fill me in on what possibilities I'm missing?","c_root_id_A":"fljzle2","c_root_id_B":"flk5b5c","created_at_utc_A":1585230659,"created_at_utc_B":1585234225,"score_A":11,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"If I understand point 1 correctly, are you saying that we'll inevitably *stop* making progress altogether? edit: also, you seem under the assumption that *we'd* be the ones making the simulation. Why?","human_ref_B":"Why do you believe that our simulator's universe must obey the same physical laws as ours? The physics in their universe could be different in that their potential for technological advancement is much greater. They may have had the same exponential growth, and hit the same plateau; just that their plateau is way higher than ours. At that level, simulating a universe down to the quark might not be that difficult. Moreover, whether *we* are able to simulate a universe doesn't tell us much about whether they can. We could just be a low-res simulation used for a proof of concept for the next level.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3566.0,"score_ratio":1.5454545455} {"post_id":"fpbsbm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The idea that we could be living in a computer simulation (which Elon Musk says is a near-absolute certainty) is completely absurd, even assuming any form of progress over an extremely long period of time. Elon Musk says we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Neil deGrasse Tyson and others assert this theory very strongly and it's apparently been an idea for quite some time, even among other well-known scientists\/philosophers. Very few major figures are coming out to say it's unlikely as far as I can tell. I want to begin by saying I have little STEM expertise, so I don't want to sound arrogant by pretending I know better than any of these people (I don't). Still, I just don't buy this theory for many reasons. Now I'll proceed: I believe there is a point at which human progress will practically plateau, and that there's a good chance the most intense stretch of fundamental discoveries (relevant to being able to simulate a reality) has probably already occurred. Take a look at this list: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Timeline\\_of\\_scientific\\_discoveries 1. People keep saying that on a long enough timeline, anything within the known laws of theoretical physics, including a computing system to power a simulation of our entire universe\/reality can be achieved, even if we can't fathom it yet. But focus on the list. You'll notice that between 0 AD and 1500 AD, there are many important scientific and mathematical discoveries, but nowhere near the amount that there are in each subsequent century alone. I would say the early 1800s through 1950 saw the largest spike in proven theories\/discoveries that fundamentally altered our understanding of matter, physics, chemistry, etc. and way of life than any period... including the last half century, which is where I'm getting to my point. Over the last 70 years since then the discoveries we have made were a lot less impactful\/groundbreaking - just looking at the timeline, there is a sign our society is clearly advancing... but does anyone think that we are going to see bigger discoveries than those of atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclear fission, etc. or the theory of relativity\/the big bang in our lifetimes or future generations? My conclusion is that the **largest leaps and bounds of progress are made in relatively small periods of time** and we may have passed the most impactful period already. This is probably because one key discovery leads to another related one, and soon we have a wave of interconnected advancements that transform our entire knowledge of a subject - i.e. the three\/four laws of thermodynamics being discovered so closely and some simultaneously - to a point where we already know the vast majority that we can fully discern. 2. Now let's focus on **one particular area as a sort of metaphor**: In less than 2 decades, we went from no space exploration to the first satellite, first man in space, and first man on the moon. It's been 50 years since then, and we don't know if we'll get a man on Mars by 2040 let alone an actual colonization. Yes, yes... reaching Mars is far more difficult and complicated... but are we expecting mankind to expand into and\/or colonize the solar system, our galaxy\/other galaxies, other life-sustaining planets, and keep going... or will we get to a point where we realize we don't have the resources, it isn't worth the gargantuan amount of time\/effort, or maybe it even gets to a point where it's practically impossible? I'm an optimist but the more we look at the logistics of accomplishing these things, the more they seem like far-out science fiction than something mankind can do. We may not have a limit per se, but there's a plateau at which certain things are just beyond our grasp. 3. I'll **extrapolate my metaphor\/example** to the simulation theory: There have been many huge advancements in computing power over the last 100 years. But for a computer simulation to exist, it would have to simulate matter on the smallest levels, not just cells, not just atoms, not just protons\/electrons\/neutrons, but quarks - which we can tell theoretically exist but know almost nothing else about. Oh, and what about dark matter? It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. It would have to simulate our entire universe, so large it is practically impossible to comprehend, and all of its astronomical bodies. I can probably go on - but to get to the main argument: I don't see mankind able to replicate such a mind-boggling reality at some point, even millennia from now. Unless we discover a new, groundbreaking law of theoretical physics or mathematical computing that has been hiding under our noses undetected for so long while all the other major laws of the universe are proven, I don't see a computer simulation of a reality like ours being in the realm of possibility. Can someone please fill me in on what possibilities I'm missing?","c_root_id_A":"flk27gy","c_root_id_B":"flk5b5c","created_at_utc_A":1585232353,"created_at_utc_B":1585234225,"score_A":7,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Simulation theory simply doesn't require a perfect simulation of every atom\/quark, especially if humans are the focus of the simulation (such as in an ancestor simulation). Why simulate every quark of some distant star when you can use some heuristics and shortcuts to get a \"close enough\" simulation at a fraction of the computational cost. You could even have the simulation get more accurate when humans are observing it. As long as you don't leave any evidence behind to suggest a switching in the level of accuracy, you're fine taking shortcuts. Also keep in mind that the simulation doesn't need to be rendered in real time. Each day could take 100 years to simulate. Dark matter would only have to be simulated to the limits of current scientific understanding of the tech level of the people simulating us as it seems unlikely as we'd probe deeper than them and even if we did, dark matter would still follow predictable and quantifiable rules that we could dive into. Or dark matter might not even be a property of the outside universe. > It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. With the discovery of the Higgs Boson, we now have a complete understanding of all the particles that are important for this kind of thing, so at this point we know all the rules that would be at play. We'd really only be limited by the ability to scan the brain and simulate the particles in the brain... and you can even skip the scanning part because you could just simulate an egg cell growing up to get a valid brain.","human_ref_B":"Why do you believe that our simulator's universe must obey the same physical laws as ours? The physics in their universe could be different in that their potential for technological advancement is much greater. They may have had the same exponential growth, and hit the same plateau; just that their plateau is way higher than ours. At that level, simulating a universe down to the quark might not be that difficult. Moreover, whether *we* are able to simulate a universe doesn't tell us much about whether they can. We could just be a low-res simulation used for a proof of concept for the next level.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1872.0,"score_ratio":2.4285714286} {"post_id":"fpbsbm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The idea that we could be living in a computer simulation (which Elon Musk says is a near-absolute certainty) is completely absurd, even assuming any form of progress over an extremely long period of time. Elon Musk says we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Neil deGrasse Tyson and others assert this theory very strongly and it's apparently been an idea for quite some time, even among other well-known scientists\/philosophers. Very few major figures are coming out to say it's unlikely as far as I can tell. I want to begin by saying I have little STEM expertise, so I don't want to sound arrogant by pretending I know better than any of these people (I don't). Still, I just don't buy this theory for many reasons. Now I'll proceed: I believe there is a point at which human progress will practically plateau, and that there's a good chance the most intense stretch of fundamental discoveries (relevant to being able to simulate a reality) has probably already occurred. Take a look at this list: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Timeline\\_of\\_scientific\\_discoveries 1. People keep saying that on a long enough timeline, anything within the known laws of theoretical physics, including a computing system to power a simulation of our entire universe\/reality can be achieved, even if we can't fathom it yet. But focus on the list. You'll notice that between 0 AD and 1500 AD, there are many important scientific and mathematical discoveries, but nowhere near the amount that there are in each subsequent century alone. I would say the early 1800s through 1950 saw the largest spike in proven theories\/discoveries that fundamentally altered our understanding of matter, physics, chemistry, etc. and way of life than any period... including the last half century, which is where I'm getting to my point. Over the last 70 years since then the discoveries we have made were a lot less impactful\/groundbreaking - just looking at the timeline, there is a sign our society is clearly advancing... but does anyone think that we are going to see bigger discoveries than those of atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclear fission, etc. or the theory of relativity\/the big bang in our lifetimes or future generations? My conclusion is that the **largest leaps and bounds of progress are made in relatively small periods of time** and we may have passed the most impactful period already. This is probably because one key discovery leads to another related one, and soon we have a wave of interconnected advancements that transform our entire knowledge of a subject - i.e. the three\/four laws of thermodynamics being discovered so closely and some simultaneously - to a point where we already know the vast majority that we can fully discern. 2. Now let's focus on **one particular area as a sort of metaphor**: In less than 2 decades, we went from no space exploration to the first satellite, first man in space, and first man on the moon. It's been 50 years since then, and we don't know if we'll get a man on Mars by 2040 let alone an actual colonization. Yes, yes... reaching Mars is far more difficult and complicated... but are we expecting mankind to expand into and\/or colonize the solar system, our galaxy\/other galaxies, other life-sustaining planets, and keep going... or will we get to a point where we realize we don't have the resources, it isn't worth the gargantuan amount of time\/effort, or maybe it even gets to a point where it's practically impossible? I'm an optimist but the more we look at the logistics of accomplishing these things, the more they seem like far-out science fiction than something mankind can do. We may not have a limit per se, but there's a plateau at which certain things are just beyond our grasp. 3. I'll **extrapolate my metaphor\/example** to the simulation theory: There have been many huge advancements in computing power over the last 100 years. But for a computer simulation to exist, it would have to simulate matter on the smallest levels, not just cells, not just atoms, not just protons\/electrons\/neutrons, but quarks - which we can tell theoretically exist but know almost nothing else about. Oh, and what about dark matter? It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. It would have to simulate our entire universe, so large it is practically impossible to comprehend, and all of its astronomical bodies. I can probably go on - but to get to the main argument: I don't see mankind able to replicate such a mind-boggling reality at some point, even millennia from now. Unless we discover a new, groundbreaking law of theoretical physics or mathematical computing that has been hiding under our noses undetected for so long while all the other major laws of the universe are proven, I don't see a computer simulation of a reality like ours being in the realm of possibility. Can someone please fill me in on what possibilities I'm missing?","c_root_id_A":"flk5b5c","c_root_id_B":"fljzjtk","created_at_utc_A":1585234225,"created_at_utc_B":1585230630,"score_A":17,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Why do you believe that our simulator's universe must obey the same physical laws as ours? The physics in their universe could be different in that their potential for technological advancement is much greater. They may have had the same exponential growth, and hit the same plateau; just that their plateau is way higher than ours. At that level, simulating a universe down to the quark might not be that difficult. Moreover, whether *we* are able to simulate a universe doesn't tell us much about whether they can. We could just be a low-res simulation used for a proof of concept for the next level.","human_ref_B":"Well string theory is what makes me wonder. I saw the whole open and closed strings and it had me thinking \"Wait....everything is a bunch of zeros and ones?\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3595.0,"score_ratio":4.25} {"post_id":"fpbsbm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The idea that we could be living in a computer simulation (which Elon Musk says is a near-absolute certainty) is completely absurd, even assuming any form of progress over an extremely long period of time. Elon Musk says we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Neil deGrasse Tyson and others assert this theory very strongly and it's apparently been an idea for quite some time, even among other well-known scientists\/philosophers. Very few major figures are coming out to say it's unlikely as far as I can tell. I want to begin by saying I have little STEM expertise, so I don't want to sound arrogant by pretending I know better than any of these people (I don't). Still, I just don't buy this theory for many reasons. Now I'll proceed: I believe there is a point at which human progress will practically plateau, and that there's a good chance the most intense stretch of fundamental discoveries (relevant to being able to simulate a reality) has probably already occurred. Take a look at this list: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Timeline\\_of\\_scientific\\_discoveries 1. People keep saying that on a long enough timeline, anything within the known laws of theoretical physics, including a computing system to power a simulation of our entire universe\/reality can be achieved, even if we can't fathom it yet. But focus on the list. You'll notice that between 0 AD and 1500 AD, there are many important scientific and mathematical discoveries, but nowhere near the amount that there are in each subsequent century alone. I would say the early 1800s through 1950 saw the largest spike in proven theories\/discoveries that fundamentally altered our understanding of matter, physics, chemistry, etc. and way of life than any period... including the last half century, which is where I'm getting to my point. Over the last 70 years since then the discoveries we have made were a lot less impactful\/groundbreaking - just looking at the timeline, there is a sign our society is clearly advancing... but does anyone think that we are going to see bigger discoveries than those of atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclear fission, etc. or the theory of relativity\/the big bang in our lifetimes or future generations? My conclusion is that the **largest leaps and bounds of progress are made in relatively small periods of time** and we may have passed the most impactful period already. This is probably because one key discovery leads to another related one, and soon we have a wave of interconnected advancements that transform our entire knowledge of a subject - i.e. the three\/four laws of thermodynamics being discovered so closely and some simultaneously - to a point where we already know the vast majority that we can fully discern. 2. Now let's focus on **one particular area as a sort of metaphor**: In less than 2 decades, we went from no space exploration to the first satellite, first man in space, and first man on the moon. It's been 50 years since then, and we don't know if we'll get a man on Mars by 2040 let alone an actual colonization. Yes, yes... reaching Mars is far more difficult and complicated... but are we expecting mankind to expand into and\/or colonize the solar system, our galaxy\/other galaxies, other life-sustaining planets, and keep going... or will we get to a point where we realize we don't have the resources, it isn't worth the gargantuan amount of time\/effort, or maybe it even gets to a point where it's practically impossible? I'm an optimist but the more we look at the logistics of accomplishing these things, the more they seem like far-out science fiction than something mankind can do. We may not have a limit per se, but there's a plateau at which certain things are just beyond our grasp. 3. I'll **extrapolate my metaphor\/example** to the simulation theory: There have been many huge advancements in computing power over the last 100 years. But for a computer simulation to exist, it would have to simulate matter on the smallest levels, not just cells, not just atoms, not just protons\/electrons\/neutrons, but quarks - which we can tell theoretically exist but know almost nothing else about. Oh, and what about dark matter? It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. It would have to simulate our entire universe, so large it is practically impossible to comprehend, and all of its astronomical bodies. I can probably go on - but to get to the main argument: I don't see mankind able to replicate such a mind-boggling reality at some point, even millennia from now. Unless we discover a new, groundbreaking law of theoretical physics or mathematical computing that has been hiding under our noses undetected for so long while all the other major laws of the universe are proven, I don't see a computer simulation of a reality like ours being in the realm of possibility. Can someone please fill me in on what possibilities I'm missing?","c_root_id_A":"flk5b5c","c_root_id_B":"flk1mxr","created_at_utc_A":1585234225,"created_at_utc_B":1585231989,"score_A":17,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Why do you believe that our simulator's universe must obey the same physical laws as ours? The physics in their universe could be different in that their potential for technological advancement is much greater. They may have had the same exponential growth, and hit the same plateau; just that their plateau is way higher than ours. At that level, simulating a universe down to the quark might not be that difficult. Moreover, whether *we* are able to simulate a universe doesn't tell us much about whether they can. We could just be a low-res simulation used for a proof of concept for the next level.","human_ref_B":"It could be true that human progress will plateau and it could even be possible that creating a universe simulation is impossible with the laws of physics in our own universe. But we don't know whether or not those conditions are the same for all possible universes. Therefore it follows that if it could be possible to create a universe simulation in any universe, then it's likely that we're living in a simulation. The 'real' universe could have millions of galaxies and and millions of different civilizations throughout trillions of years of history, and the technology to create simulated universes only has to be created once. That one civilization living in that one universe where it's possible for them to create a universe simulation could create very many universe simulations, so any random civilization you choose across multiple universes (ours, for instance) has a much higher chance to be in a simulated universe than a 'real' universe. Suppose now that some of the simulated universes might have conditions that are right for creating simulated universes of their own and now the chances that we're in in the 'real' universe get even smaller.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2236.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} {"post_id":"fpbsbm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The idea that we could be living in a computer simulation (which Elon Musk says is a near-absolute certainty) is completely absurd, even assuming any form of progress over an extremely long period of time. Elon Musk says we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Neil deGrasse Tyson and others assert this theory very strongly and it's apparently been an idea for quite some time, even among other well-known scientists\/philosophers. Very few major figures are coming out to say it's unlikely as far as I can tell. I want to begin by saying I have little STEM expertise, so I don't want to sound arrogant by pretending I know better than any of these people (I don't). Still, I just don't buy this theory for many reasons. Now I'll proceed: I believe there is a point at which human progress will practically plateau, and that there's a good chance the most intense stretch of fundamental discoveries (relevant to being able to simulate a reality) has probably already occurred. Take a look at this list: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Timeline\\_of\\_scientific\\_discoveries 1. People keep saying that on a long enough timeline, anything within the known laws of theoretical physics, including a computing system to power a simulation of our entire universe\/reality can be achieved, even if we can't fathom it yet. But focus on the list. You'll notice that between 0 AD and 1500 AD, there are many important scientific and mathematical discoveries, but nowhere near the amount that there are in each subsequent century alone. I would say the early 1800s through 1950 saw the largest spike in proven theories\/discoveries that fundamentally altered our understanding of matter, physics, chemistry, etc. and way of life than any period... including the last half century, which is where I'm getting to my point. Over the last 70 years since then the discoveries we have made were a lot less impactful\/groundbreaking - just looking at the timeline, there is a sign our society is clearly advancing... but does anyone think that we are going to see bigger discoveries than those of atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclear fission, etc. or the theory of relativity\/the big bang in our lifetimes or future generations? My conclusion is that the **largest leaps and bounds of progress are made in relatively small periods of time** and we may have passed the most impactful period already. This is probably because one key discovery leads to another related one, and soon we have a wave of interconnected advancements that transform our entire knowledge of a subject - i.e. the three\/four laws of thermodynamics being discovered so closely and some simultaneously - to a point where we already know the vast majority that we can fully discern. 2. Now let's focus on **one particular area as a sort of metaphor**: In less than 2 decades, we went from no space exploration to the first satellite, first man in space, and first man on the moon. It's been 50 years since then, and we don't know if we'll get a man on Mars by 2040 let alone an actual colonization. Yes, yes... reaching Mars is far more difficult and complicated... but are we expecting mankind to expand into and\/or colonize the solar system, our galaxy\/other galaxies, other life-sustaining planets, and keep going... or will we get to a point where we realize we don't have the resources, it isn't worth the gargantuan amount of time\/effort, or maybe it even gets to a point where it's practically impossible? I'm an optimist but the more we look at the logistics of accomplishing these things, the more they seem like far-out science fiction than something mankind can do. We may not have a limit per se, but there's a plateau at which certain things are just beyond our grasp. 3. I'll **extrapolate my metaphor\/example** to the simulation theory: There have been many huge advancements in computing power over the last 100 years. But for a computer simulation to exist, it would have to simulate matter on the smallest levels, not just cells, not just atoms, not just protons\/electrons\/neutrons, but quarks - which we can tell theoretically exist but know almost nothing else about. Oh, and what about dark matter? It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. It would have to simulate our entire universe, so large it is practically impossible to comprehend, and all of its astronomical bodies. I can probably go on - but to get to the main argument: I don't see mankind able to replicate such a mind-boggling reality at some point, even millennia from now. Unless we discover a new, groundbreaking law of theoretical physics or mathematical computing that has been hiding under our noses undetected for so long while all the other major laws of the universe are proven, I don't see a computer simulation of a reality like ours being in the realm of possibility. Can someone please fill me in on what possibilities I'm missing?","c_root_id_A":"fljzle2","c_root_id_B":"fljzjtk","created_at_utc_A":1585230659,"created_at_utc_B":1585230630,"score_A":11,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If I understand point 1 correctly, are you saying that we'll inevitably *stop* making progress altogether? edit: also, you seem under the assumption that *we'd* be the ones making the simulation. Why?","human_ref_B":"Well string theory is what makes me wonder. I saw the whole open and closed strings and it had me thinking \"Wait....everything is a bunch of zeros and ones?\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"fpbsbm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The idea that we could be living in a computer simulation (which Elon Musk says is a near-absolute certainty) is completely absurd, even assuming any form of progress over an extremely long period of time. Elon Musk says we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Neil deGrasse Tyson and others assert this theory very strongly and it's apparently been an idea for quite some time, even among other well-known scientists\/philosophers. Very few major figures are coming out to say it's unlikely as far as I can tell. I want to begin by saying I have little STEM expertise, so I don't want to sound arrogant by pretending I know better than any of these people (I don't). Still, I just don't buy this theory for many reasons. Now I'll proceed: I believe there is a point at which human progress will practically plateau, and that there's a good chance the most intense stretch of fundamental discoveries (relevant to being able to simulate a reality) has probably already occurred. Take a look at this list: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Timeline\\_of\\_scientific\\_discoveries 1. People keep saying that on a long enough timeline, anything within the known laws of theoretical physics, including a computing system to power a simulation of our entire universe\/reality can be achieved, even if we can't fathom it yet. But focus on the list. You'll notice that between 0 AD and 1500 AD, there are many important scientific and mathematical discoveries, but nowhere near the amount that there are in each subsequent century alone. I would say the early 1800s through 1950 saw the largest spike in proven theories\/discoveries that fundamentally altered our understanding of matter, physics, chemistry, etc. and way of life than any period... including the last half century, which is where I'm getting to my point. Over the last 70 years since then the discoveries we have made were a lot less impactful\/groundbreaking - just looking at the timeline, there is a sign our society is clearly advancing... but does anyone think that we are going to see bigger discoveries than those of atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclear fission, etc. or the theory of relativity\/the big bang in our lifetimes or future generations? My conclusion is that the **largest leaps and bounds of progress are made in relatively small periods of time** and we may have passed the most impactful period already. This is probably because one key discovery leads to another related one, and soon we have a wave of interconnected advancements that transform our entire knowledge of a subject - i.e. the three\/four laws of thermodynamics being discovered so closely and some simultaneously - to a point where we already know the vast majority that we can fully discern. 2. Now let's focus on **one particular area as a sort of metaphor**: In less than 2 decades, we went from no space exploration to the first satellite, first man in space, and first man on the moon. It's been 50 years since then, and we don't know if we'll get a man on Mars by 2040 let alone an actual colonization. Yes, yes... reaching Mars is far more difficult and complicated... but are we expecting mankind to expand into and\/or colonize the solar system, our galaxy\/other galaxies, other life-sustaining planets, and keep going... or will we get to a point where we realize we don't have the resources, it isn't worth the gargantuan amount of time\/effort, or maybe it even gets to a point where it's practically impossible? I'm an optimist but the more we look at the logistics of accomplishing these things, the more they seem like far-out science fiction than something mankind can do. We may not have a limit per se, but there's a plateau at which certain things are just beyond our grasp. 3. I'll **extrapolate my metaphor\/example** to the simulation theory: There have been many huge advancements in computing power over the last 100 years. But for a computer simulation to exist, it would have to simulate matter on the smallest levels, not just cells, not just atoms, not just protons\/electrons\/neutrons, but quarks - which we can tell theoretically exist but know almost nothing else about. Oh, and what about dark matter? It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. It would have to simulate our entire universe, so large it is practically impossible to comprehend, and all of its astronomical bodies. I can probably go on - but to get to the main argument: I don't see mankind able to replicate such a mind-boggling reality at some point, even millennia from now. Unless we discover a new, groundbreaking law of theoretical physics or mathematical computing that has been hiding under our noses undetected for so long while all the other major laws of the universe are proven, I don't see a computer simulation of a reality like ours being in the realm of possibility. Can someone please fill me in on what possibilities I'm missing?","c_root_id_A":"fljzjtk","c_root_id_B":"flk27gy","created_at_utc_A":1585230630,"created_at_utc_B":1585232353,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Well string theory is what makes me wonder. I saw the whole open and closed strings and it had me thinking \"Wait....everything is a bunch of zeros and ones?\"","human_ref_B":"Simulation theory simply doesn't require a perfect simulation of every atom\/quark, especially if humans are the focus of the simulation (such as in an ancestor simulation). Why simulate every quark of some distant star when you can use some heuristics and shortcuts to get a \"close enough\" simulation at a fraction of the computational cost. You could even have the simulation get more accurate when humans are observing it. As long as you don't leave any evidence behind to suggest a switching in the level of accuracy, you're fine taking shortcuts. Also keep in mind that the simulation doesn't need to be rendered in real time. Each day could take 100 years to simulate. Dark matter would only have to be simulated to the limits of current scientific understanding of the tech level of the people simulating us as it seems unlikely as we'd probe deeper than them and even if we did, dark matter would still follow predictable and quantifiable rules that we could dive into. Or dark matter might not even be a property of the outside universe. > It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. With the discovery of the Higgs Boson, we now have a complete understanding of all the particles that are important for this kind of thing, so at this point we know all the rules that would be at play. We'd really only be limited by the ability to scan the brain and simulate the particles in the brain... and you can even skip the scanning part because you could just simulate an egg cell growing up to get a valid brain.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1723.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"fpbsbm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The idea that we could be living in a computer simulation (which Elon Musk says is a near-absolute certainty) is completely absurd, even assuming any form of progress over an extremely long period of time. Elon Musk says we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Neil deGrasse Tyson and others assert this theory very strongly and it's apparently been an idea for quite some time, even among other well-known scientists\/philosophers. Very few major figures are coming out to say it's unlikely as far as I can tell. I want to begin by saying I have little STEM expertise, so I don't want to sound arrogant by pretending I know better than any of these people (I don't). Still, I just don't buy this theory for many reasons. Now I'll proceed: I believe there is a point at which human progress will practically plateau, and that there's a good chance the most intense stretch of fundamental discoveries (relevant to being able to simulate a reality) has probably already occurred. Take a look at this list: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Timeline\\_of\\_scientific\\_discoveries 1. People keep saying that on a long enough timeline, anything within the known laws of theoretical physics, including a computing system to power a simulation of our entire universe\/reality can be achieved, even if we can't fathom it yet. But focus on the list. You'll notice that between 0 AD and 1500 AD, there are many important scientific and mathematical discoveries, but nowhere near the amount that there are in each subsequent century alone. I would say the early 1800s through 1950 saw the largest spike in proven theories\/discoveries that fundamentally altered our understanding of matter, physics, chemistry, etc. and way of life than any period... including the last half century, which is where I'm getting to my point. Over the last 70 years since then the discoveries we have made were a lot less impactful\/groundbreaking - just looking at the timeline, there is a sign our society is clearly advancing... but does anyone think that we are going to see bigger discoveries than those of atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclear fission, etc. or the theory of relativity\/the big bang in our lifetimes or future generations? My conclusion is that the **largest leaps and bounds of progress are made in relatively small periods of time** and we may have passed the most impactful period already. This is probably because one key discovery leads to another related one, and soon we have a wave of interconnected advancements that transform our entire knowledge of a subject - i.e. the three\/four laws of thermodynamics being discovered so closely and some simultaneously - to a point where we already know the vast majority that we can fully discern. 2. Now let's focus on **one particular area as a sort of metaphor**: In less than 2 decades, we went from no space exploration to the first satellite, first man in space, and first man on the moon. It's been 50 years since then, and we don't know if we'll get a man on Mars by 2040 let alone an actual colonization. Yes, yes... reaching Mars is far more difficult and complicated... but are we expecting mankind to expand into and\/or colonize the solar system, our galaxy\/other galaxies, other life-sustaining planets, and keep going... or will we get to a point where we realize we don't have the resources, it isn't worth the gargantuan amount of time\/effort, or maybe it even gets to a point where it's practically impossible? I'm an optimist but the more we look at the logistics of accomplishing these things, the more they seem like far-out science fiction than something mankind can do. We may not have a limit per se, but there's a plateau at which certain things are just beyond our grasp. 3. I'll **extrapolate my metaphor\/example** to the simulation theory: There have been many huge advancements in computing power over the last 100 years. But for a computer simulation to exist, it would have to simulate matter on the smallest levels, not just cells, not just atoms, not just protons\/electrons\/neutrons, but quarks - which we can tell theoretically exist but know almost nothing else about. Oh, and what about dark matter? It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. It would have to simulate our entire universe, so large it is practically impossible to comprehend, and all of its astronomical bodies. I can probably go on - but to get to the main argument: I don't see mankind able to replicate such a mind-boggling reality at some point, even millennia from now. Unless we discover a new, groundbreaking law of theoretical physics or mathematical computing that has been hiding under our noses undetected for so long while all the other major laws of the universe are proven, I don't see a computer simulation of a reality like ours being in the realm of possibility. Can someone please fill me in on what possibilities I'm missing?","c_root_id_A":"flk27gy","c_root_id_B":"flk1mxr","created_at_utc_A":1585232353,"created_at_utc_B":1585231989,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Simulation theory simply doesn't require a perfect simulation of every atom\/quark, especially if humans are the focus of the simulation (such as in an ancestor simulation). Why simulate every quark of some distant star when you can use some heuristics and shortcuts to get a \"close enough\" simulation at a fraction of the computational cost. You could even have the simulation get more accurate when humans are observing it. As long as you don't leave any evidence behind to suggest a switching in the level of accuracy, you're fine taking shortcuts. Also keep in mind that the simulation doesn't need to be rendered in real time. Each day could take 100 years to simulate. Dark matter would only have to be simulated to the limits of current scientific understanding of the tech level of the people simulating us as it seems unlikely as we'd probe deeper than them and even if we did, dark matter would still follow predictable and quantifiable rules that we could dive into. Or dark matter might not even be a property of the outside universe. > It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. With the discovery of the Higgs Boson, we now have a complete understanding of all the particles that are important for this kind of thing, so at this point we know all the rules that would be at play. We'd really only be limited by the ability to scan the brain and simulate the particles in the brain... and you can even skip the scanning part because you could just simulate an egg cell growing up to get a valid brain.","human_ref_B":"It could be true that human progress will plateau and it could even be possible that creating a universe simulation is impossible with the laws of physics in our own universe. But we don't know whether or not those conditions are the same for all possible universes. Therefore it follows that if it could be possible to create a universe simulation in any universe, then it's likely that we're living in a simulation. The 'real' universe could have millions of galaxies and and millions of different civilizations throughout trillions of years of history, and the technology to create simulated universes only has to be created once. That one civilization living in that one universe where it's possible for them to create a universe simulation could create very many universe simulations, so any random civilization you choose across multiple universes (ours, for instance) has a much higher chance to be in a simulated universe than a 'real' universe. Suppose now that some of the simulated universes might have conditions that are right for creating simulated universes of their own and now the chances that we're in in the 'real' universe get even smaller.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":364.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"fpbsbm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The idea that we could be living in a computer simulation (which Elon Musk says is a near-absolute certainty) is completely absurd, even assuming any form of progress over an extremely long period of time. Elon Musk says we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Neil deGrasse Tyson and others assert this theory very strongly and it's apparently been an idea for quite some time, even among other well-known scientists\/philosophers. Very few major figures are coming out to say it's unlikely as far as I can tell. I want to begin by saying I have little STEM expertise, so I don't want to sound arrogant by pretending I know better than any of these people (I don't). Still, I just don't buy this theory for many reasons. Now I'll proceed: I believe there is a point at which human progress will practically plateau, and that there's a good chance the most intense stretch of fundamental discoveries (relevant to being able to simulate a reality) has probably already occurred. Take a look at this list: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Timeline\\_of\\_scientific\\_discoveries 1. People keep saying that on a long enough timeline, anything within the known laws of theoretical physics, including a computing system to power a simulation of our entire universe\/reality can be achieved, even if we can't fathom it yet. But focus on the list. You'll notice that between 0 AD and 1500 AD, there are many important scientific and mathematical discoveries, but nowhere near the amount that there are in each subsequent century alone. I would say the early 1800s through 1950 saw the largest spike in proven theories\/discoveries that fundamentally altered our understanding of matter, physics, chemistry, etc. and way of life than any period... including the last half century, which is where I'm getting to my point. Over the last 70 years since then the discoveries we have made were a lot less impactful\/groundbreaking - just looking at the timeline, there is a sign our society is clearly advancing... but does anyone think that we are going to see bigger discoveries than those of atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclear fission, etc. or the theory of relativity\/the big bang in our lifetimes or future generations? My conclusion is that the **largest leaps and bounds of progress are made in relatively small periods of time** and we may have passed the most impactful period already. This is probably because one key discovery leads to another related one, and soon we have a wave of interconnected advancements that transform our entire knowledge of a subject - i.e. the three\/four laws of thermodynamics being discovered so closely and some simultaneously - to a point where we already know the vast majority that we can fully discern. 2. Now let's focus on **one particular area as a sort of metaphor**: In less than 2 decades, we went from no space exploration to the first satellite, first man in space, and first man on the moon. It's been 50 years since then, and we don't know if we'll get a man on Mars by 2040 let alone an actual colonization. Yes, yes... reaching Mars is far more difficult and complicated... but are we expecting mankind to expand into and\/or colonize the solar system, our galaxy\/other galaxies, other life-sustaining planets, and keep going... or will we get to a point where we realize we don't have the resources, it isn't worth the gargantuan amount of time\/effort, or maybe it even gets to a point where it's practically impossible? I'm an optimist but the more we look at the logistics of accomplishing these things, the more they seem like far-out science fiction than something mankind can do. We may not have a limit per se, but there's a plateau at which certain things are just beyond our grasp. 3. I'll **extrapolate my metaphor\/example** to the simulation theory: There have been many huge advancements in computing power over the last 100 years. But for a computer simulation to exist, it would have to simulate matter on the smallest levels, not just cells, not just atoms, not just protons\/electrons\/neutrons, but quarks - which we can tell theoretically exist but know almost nothing else about. Oh, and what about dark matter? It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. It would have to simulate our entire universe, so large it is practically impossible to comprehend, and all of its astronomical bodies. I can probably go on - but to get to the main argument: I don't see mankind able to replicate such a mind-boggling reality at some point, even millennia from now. Unless we discover a new, groundbreaking law of theoretical physics or mathematical computing that has been hiding under our noses undetected for so long while all the other major laws of the universe are proven, I don't see a computer simulation of a reality like ours being in the realm of possibility. Can someone please fill me in on what possibilities I'm missing?","c_root_id_A":"fljzjtk","c_root_id_B":"flk6irw","created_at_utc_A":1585230630,"created_at_utc_B":1585234934,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Well string theory is what makes me wonder. I saw the whole open and closed strings and it had me thinking \"Wait....everything is a bunch of zeros and ones?\"","human_ref_B":"So I have two major disagreements with this argument. First of all, it is possible to make really, really big computers. The perfect example of this is a Matrioshka Brain which would be a computer that essentially uses the entire energy output of a star. In fact, it is the explanation many people use for the technology that is being used to create the simulation in the first place, showing the technology is within human conception, if not current construction capabilities. The second thing to consider is that it doesn't need to render everything, just what we observe. Video games today don't load in an entire world, they load in each area as you get to it. Similarly, a simulation could just load in the vast majority of the cosmos, or any particular arrangement of atoms, only when anyone actually bothers to observe them, which would vastly reduce computational load.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4304.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"fpbsbm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The idea that we could be living in a computer simulation (which Elon Musk says is a near-absolute certainty) is completely absurd, even assuming any form of progress over an extremely long period of time. Elon Musk says we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. Neil deGrasse Tyson and others assert this theory very strongly and it's apparently been an idea for quite some time, even among other well-known scientists\/philosophers. Very few major figures are coming out to say it's unlikely as far as I can tell. I want to begin by saying I have little STEM expertise, so I don't want to sound arrogant by pretending I know better than any of these people (I don't). Still, I just don't buy this theory for many reasons. Now I'll proceed: I believe there is a point at which human progress will practically plateau, and that there's a good chance the most intense stretch of fundamental discoveries (relevant to being able to simulate a reality) has probably already occurred. Take a look at this list: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Timeline\\_of\\_scientific\\_discoveries 1. People keep saying that on a long enough timeline, anything within the known laws of theoretical physics, including a computing system to power a simulation of our entire universe\/reality can be achieved, even if we can't fathom it yet. But focus on the list. You'll notice that between 0 AD and 1500 AD, there are many important scientific and mathematical discoveries, but nowhere near the amount that there are in each subsequent century alone. I would say the early 1800s through 1950 saw the largest spike in proven theories\/discoveries that fundamentally altered our understanding of matter, physics, chemistry, etc. and way of life than any period... including the last half century, which is where I'm getting to my point. Over the last 70 years since then the discoveries we have made were a lot less impactful\/groundbreaking - just looking at the timeline, there is a sign our society is clearly advancing... but does anyone think that we are going to see bigger discoveries than those of atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclear fission, etc. or the theory of relativity\/the big bang in our lifetimes or future generations? My conclusion is that the **largest leaps and bounds of progress are made in relatively small periods of time** and we may have passed the most impactful period already. This is probably because one key discovery leads to another related one, and soon we have a wave of interconnected advancements that transform our entire knowledge of a subject - i.e. the three\/four laws of thermodynamics being discovered so closely and some simultaneously - to a point where we already know the vast majority that we can fully discern. 2. Now let's focus on **one particular area as a sort of metaphor**: In less than 2 decades, we went from no space exploration to the first satellite, first man in space, and first man on the moon. It's been 50 years since then, and we don't know if we'll get a man on Mars by 2040 let alone an actual colonization. Yes, yes... reaching Mars is far more difficult and complicated... but are we expecting mankind to expand into and\/or colonize the solar system, our galaxy\/other galaxies, other life-sustaining planets, and keep going... or will we get to a point where we realize we don't have the resources, it isn't worth the gargantuan amount of time\/effort, or maybe it even gets to a point where it's practically impossible? I'm an optimist but the more we look at the logistics of accomplishing these things, the more they seem like far-out science fiction than something mankind can do. We may not have a limit per se, but there's a plateau at which certain things are just beyond our grasp. 3. I'll **extrapolate my metaphor\/example** to the simulation theory: There have been many huge advancements in computing power over the last 100 years. But for a computer simulation to exist, it would have to simulate matter on the smallest levels, not just cells, not just atoms, not just protons\/electrons\/neutrons, but quarks - which we can tell theoretically exist but know almost nothing else about. Oh, and what about dark matter? It would have to simulate human consciousness, and every individual's unique neurochemistry, which we ourselves barely understand yet. It would have to simulate our entire universe, so large it is practically impossible to comprehend, and all of its astronomical bodies. I can probably go on - but to get to the main argument: I don't see mankind able to replicate such a mind-boggling reality at some point, even millennia from now. Unless we discover a new, groundbreaking law of theoretical physics or mathematical computing that has been hiding under our noses undetected for so long while all the other major laws of the universe are proven, I don't see a computer simulation of a reality like ours being in the realm of possibility. Can someone please fill me in on what possibilities I'm missing?","c_root_id_A":"flk1mxr","c_root_id_B":"flk6irw","created_at_utc_A":1585231989,"created_at_utc_B":1585234934,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It could be true that human progress will plateau and it could even be possible that creating a universe simulation is impossible with the laws of physics in our own universe. But we don't know whether or not those conditions are the same for all possible universes. Therefore it follows that if it could be possible to create a universe simulation in any universe, then it's likely that we're living in a simulation. The 'real' universe could have millions of galaxies and and millions of different civilizations throughout trillions of years of history, and the technology to create simulated universes only has to be created once. That one civilization living in that one universe where it's possible for them to create a universe simulation could create very many universe simulations, so any random civilization you choose across multiple universes (ours, for instance) has a much higher chance to be in a simulated universe than a 'real' universe. Suppose now that some of the simulated universes might have conditions that are right for creating simulated universes of their own and now the chances that we're in in the 'real' universe get even smaller.","human_ref_B":"So I have two major disagreements with this argument. First of all, it is possible to make really, really big computers. The perfect example of this is a Matrioshka Brain which would be a computer that essentially uses the entire energy output of a star. In fact, it is the explanation many people use for the technology that is being used to create the simulation in the first place, showing the technology is within human conception, if not current construction capabilities. The second thing to consider is that it doesn't need to render everything, just what we observe. Video games today don't load in an entire world, they load in each area as you get to it. Similarly, a simulation could just load in the vast majority of the cosmos, or any particular arrangement of atoms, only when anyone actually bothers to observe them, which would vastly reduce computational load.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2945.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ebksrbi","c_root_id_B":"ebku2ma","created_at_utc_A":1544552539,"created_at_utc_B":1544553512,"score_A":20,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Why, though? It's hardly a major turning point in his life\/career, and to this point, has had no bearing on anything for him. Wikipedia is meant to be a brief synopsis of a subject, and this doesn't really make the cut. If it turns out that it ends up having a major impact on his life\/career, then it would make sense to include it as part of the story.","human_ref_B":"I actually do edit Wikipedia, so here is the central issue: What Wikipedia is Not. Wikipedia has certain criteria for stories it decides to include and not include, even if the story has been picked up by several newspapers. For example, if 20 newspapers report on what Miley Cyrus wore to the Oscars, that does not make her dress notable and encyclopedia-worthy information. In the course of Miley's life, what she wore to the Oscars one year will be an unimportant and forgettable detail, unless it was indicative of a larger change in her media image. The most significant style standard is this: > **What Wikipedia is Not: News reports.** Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, **most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion**. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, **breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information**. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style. If these reports cause a lasting change in Tyson's career, such as getting fired from his show or inciting a police investigation, they would definitely be included in his article. But, if they're forgotten and change nothing next week, they should not be. Plenty of people accuse him on Twitter of various things, and these allegations should be treated no more seriously.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":973.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ebkqbl6","c_root_id_B":"ebku2ma","created_at_utc_A":1544550730,"created_at_utc_B":1544553512,"score_A":14,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"I think generally speaking, if you were to include Neil Degrasse Tyson's allegations, you would more or less have to include an allegation page for every celebrity on Wikipedia. Which could actually be added to Wikipedia templating I guess. So if it was me I wouldn't add them, and I'd probably remove the allegations from several other pages.","human_ref_B":"I actually do edit Wikipedia, so here is the central issue: What Wikipedia is Not. Wikipedia has certain criteria for stories it decides to include and not include, even if the story has been picked up by several newspapers. For example, if 20 newspapers report on what Miley Cyrus wore to the Oscars, that does not make her dress notable and encyclopedia-worthy information. In the course of Miley's life, what she wore to the Oscars one year will be an unimportant and forgettable detail, unless it was indicative of a larger change in her media image. The most significant style standard is this: > **What Wikipedia is Not: News reports.** Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, **most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion**. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, **breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information**. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style. If these reports cause a lasting change in Tyson's career, such as getting fired from his show or inciting a police investigation, they would definitely be included in his article. But, if they're forgotten and change nothing next week, they should not be. Plenty of people accuse him on Twitter of various things, and these allegations should be treated no more seriously.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2782.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ebkqqaw","c_root_id_B":"ebku2ma","created_at_utc_A":1544551026,"created_at_utc_B":1544553512,"score_A":3,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"I would go beyond that his allegations should not be on his wikipedia page and add that they should not even be allowed to be public, as is the case in most countries. They are simply allegations and people should not have their lives ruined before the investigation is over and the individual is proven either innocent or guilty.","human_ref_B":"I actually do edit Wikipedia, so here is the central issue: What Wikipedia is Not. Wikipedia has certain criteria for stories it decides to include and not include, even if the story has been picked up by several newspapers. For example, if 20 newspapers report on what Miley Cyrus wore to the Oscars, that does not make her dress notable and encyclopedia-worthy information. In the course of Miley's life, what she wore to the Oscars one year will be an unimportant and forgettable detail, unless it was indicative of a larger change in her media image. The most significant style standard is this: > **What Wikipedia is Not: News reports.** Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, **most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion**. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, **breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information**. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style. If these reports cause a lasting change in Tyson's career, such as getting fired from his show or inciting a police investigation, they would definitely be included in his article. But, if they're forgotten and change nothing next week, they should not be. Plenty of people accuse him on Twitter of various things, and these allegations should be treated no more seriously.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2486.0,"score_ratio":11.6666666667} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ebku2ma","c_root_id_B":"ebktvo3","created_at_utc_A":1544553512,"created_at_utc_B":1544553367,"score_A":35,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I actually do edit Wikipedia, so here is the central issue: What Wikipedia is Not. Wikipedia has certain criteria for stories it decides to include and not include, even if the story has been picked up by several newspapers. For example, if 20 newspapers report on what Miley Cyrus wore to the Oscars, that does not make her dress notable and encyclopedia-worthy information. In the course of Miley's life, what she wore to the Oscars one year will be an unimportant and forgettable detail, unless it was indicative of a larger change in her media image. The most significant style standard is this: > **What Wikipedia is Not: News reports.** Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, **most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion**. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, **breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information**. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style. If these reports cause a lasting change in Tyson's career, such as getting fired from his show or inciting a police investigation, they would definitely be included in his article. But, if they're forgotten and change nothing next week, they should not be. Plenty of people accuse him on Twitter of various things, and these allegations should be treated no more seriously.","human_ref_B":"Wikipedia is not a source of news or current events, it is a source for facts. Despite what your high school teachers may have said, Wikipedia does not run on hearsay. There are plenty of places online to find the newest information in the investigation. But, for the purpose that Wikipedia is designed to serve, it makes more sense to let it all play out and then include the entire story at once with all of the facts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":145.0,"score_ratio":17.5} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ebkqbl6","c_root_id_B":"ebksrbi","created_at_utc_A":1544550730,"created_at_utc_B":1544552539,"score_A":14,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"I think generally speaking, if you were to include Neil Degrasse Tyson's allegations, you would more or less have to include an allegation page for every celebrity on Wikipedia. Which could actually be added to Wikipedia templating I guess. So if it was me I wouldn't add them, and I'd probably remove the allegations from several other pages.","human_ref_B":"Why, though? It's hardly a major turning point in his life\/career, and to this point, has had no bearing on anything for him. Wikipedia is meant to be a brief synopsis of a subject, and this doesn't really make the cut. If it turns out that it ends up having a major impact on his life\/career, then it would make sense to include it as part of the story.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1809.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ebksrbi","c_root_id_B":"ebkqqaw","created_at_utc_A":1544552539,"created_at_utc_B":1544551026,"score_A":20,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Why, though? It's hardly a major turning point in his life\/career, and to this point, has had no bearing on anything for him. Wikipedia is meant to be a brief synopsis of a subject, and this doesn't really make the cut. If it turns out that it ends up having a major impact on his life\/career, then it would make sense to include it as part of the story.","human_ref_B":"I would go beyond that his allegations should not be on his wikipedia page and add that they should not even be allowed to be public, as is the case in most countries. They are simply allegations and people should not have their lives ruined before the investigation is over and the individual is proven either innocent or guilty.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1513.0,"score_ratio":6.6666666667} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ebkqqaw","c_root_id_B":"ebkuru5","created_at_utc_A":1544551026,"created_at_utc_B":1544554033,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I would go beyond that his allegations should not be on his wikipedia page and add that they should not even be allowed to be public, as is the case in most countries. They are simply allegations and people should not have their lives ruined before the investigation is over and the individual is proven either innocent or guilty.","human_ref_B":"Jesus. He supposedly raped a woman in college and threatened another woman with a knife? What\u2019s next? Bill Nye is a pedo?!?! In all seriousness, I agree with a few posters in that allegations shouldn\u2019t be listed in a person\u2019s bio if they\u2019re never confirmed as fact. I think it\u2019s important to keep these accusations in mind when considering him as a person but they don\u2019t necessarily belong on Wikipedia, in my opinion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3007.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ebktvo3","c_root_id_B":"ebkuru5","created_at_utc_A":1544553367,"created_at_utc_B":1544554033,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Wikipedia is not a source of news or current events, it is a source for facts. Despite what your high school teachers may have said, Wikipedia does not run on hearsay. There are plenty of places online to find the newest information in the investigation. But, for the purpose that Wikipedia is designed to serve, it makes more sense to let it all play out and then include the entire story at once with all of the facts.","human_ref_B":"Jesus. He supposedly raped a woman in college and threatened another woman with a knife? What\u2019s next? Bill Nye is a pedo?!?! In all seriousness, I agree with a few posters in that allegations shouldn\u2019t be listed in a person\u2019s bio if they\u2019re never confirmed as fact. I think it\u2019s important to keep these accusations in mind when considering him as a person but they don\u2019t necessarily belong on Wikipedia, in my opinion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":666.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ebkwssr","c_root_id_B":"ebkqqaw","created_at_utc_A":1544555517,"created_at_utc_B":1544551026,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There would be absolutely no point in including allegations of his \u201csexual misconduct\u201d on his Wikipedia page. Nothing has been proven. Right now you or I could go falsely accuse a celebrity of rape and talk to magazines and newspapers and get all kinds of press coverage. Besides NDT\u2019s accusers sound like they just want attention, especially the first woman that opened the door for the other two women to come forward. The first woman says he drugged and raped her but tries to base the story on a night she doesn\u2019t remember, and then a morning she doesn\u2019t remember? How is that credible at all? Then the girl with the tattoo got upset that he touched her shoulder and moved her dress slightly? Not sexual at all. Then his assistant on that production got weirded out by something he said and felt like he tried to seduce her by inviting her for wine and cheese. She couldn\u2019t have been *that* weirded out due to the fact that she accepted his invitation to hang out at his place. He says it was just as friends, she didn\u2019t mention any sexual misconduct; just that she thought it was an attempt to seduce her. That\u2019s not sexual misconduct. What you\u2019re suggesting is just further branding him a sexual predator but without any evidence. These days it\u2019s like the moment you\u2019re accused you instantly suffer the consequences as if you were already found guilty. I\u2019m really over the first world victimhood offense culture that\u2019s plaguing our society.","human_ref_B":"I would go beyond that his allegations should not be on his wikipedia page and add that they should not even be allowed to be public, as is the case in most countries. They are simply allegations and people should not have their lives ruined before the investigation is over and the individual is proven either innocent or guilty.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4491.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ebkwssr","c_root_id_B":"ebktvo3","created_at_utc_A":1544555517,"created_at_utc_B":1544553367,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There would be absolutely no point in including allegations of his \u201csexual misconduct\u201d on his Wikipedia page. Nothing has been proven. Right now you or I could go falsely accuse a celebrity of rape and talk to magazines and newspapers and get all kinds of press coverage. Besides NDT\u2019s accusers sound like they just want attention, especially the first woman that opened the door for the other two women to come forward. The first woman says he drugged and raped her but tries to base the story on a night she doesn\u2019t remember, and then a morning she doesn\u2019t remember? How is that credible at all? Then the girl with the tattoo got upset that he touched her shoulder and moved her dress slightly? Not sexual at all. Then his assistant on that production got weirded out by something he said and felt like he tried to seduce her by inviting her for wine and cheese. She couldn\u2019t have been *that* weirded out due to the fact that she accepted his invitation to hang out at his place. He says it was just as friends, she didn\u2019t mention any sexual misconduct; just that she thought it was an attempt to seduce her. That\u2019s not sexual misconduct. What you\u2019re suggesting is just further branding him a sexual predator but without any evidence. These days it\u2019s like the moment you\u2019re accused you instantly suffer the consequences as if you were already found guilty. I\u2019m really over the first world victimhood offense culture that\u2019s plaguing our society.","human_ref_B":"Wikipedia is not a source of news or current events, it is a source for facts. Despite what your high school teachers may have said, Wikipedia does not run on hearsay. There are plenty of places online to find the newest information in the investigation. But, for the purpose that Wikipedia is designed to serve, it makes more sense to let it all play out and then include the entire story at once with all of the facts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2150.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"eblgcc8","c_root_id_B":"ebkqqaw","created_at_utc_A":1544570011,"created_at_utc_B":1544551026,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"based on visvya comment the relevant question seems to be this. are these accusations news or are they relevant information about the man. I did read NdT's responses. * in the first incident he inspects a tattoo on a girls arm in a way that makes her uncomfortable. * in the second he invites an assistant to what seems to be a date. She feels uncomfortable. He shakes her hand in a weird way. * in the third he is accused of drugging and raping a girl. Obviously a very serious accusation. the first two do not seem noteworthy to me. NdT interacts with a lot of people. Who among us hasn't accidentally made someone uncomfortable? A weird semi-date gone wrong. Anyone attempting to be friendly is going to occasionally be too friendly. The third is an incredibly serious accusation. Its probably not a good idea to publish all allegations on Wikipedia, i think it only makes sense to publish creditable accusation. Determining whether or not the accusation is credible isn't really Wikipedia's mission. Encyclopedia's shouldn't be speculating. Posting it give its credibility and Wikipedia needs to take that responsibility seriously. Wikipedia needs to outsource the job of determining credibility... maybe to the legal system? So i would say it definitely makes sense to not publish anything on the first two incidents. And it makes sense to publish something on the third incident only when formal charges are filed against him, and maybe only after a trial or plea deal is completed.","human_ref_B":"I would go beyond that his allegations should not be on his wikipedia page and add that they should not even be allowed to be public, as is the case in most countries. They are simply allegations and people should not have their lives ruined before the investigation is over and the individual is proven either innocent or guilty.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18985.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"eblgcc8","c_root_id_B":"ebktvo3","created_at_utc_A":1544570011,"created_at_utc_B":1544553367,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"based on visvya comment the relevant question seems to be this. are these accusations news or are they relevant information about the man. I did read NdT's responses. * in the first incident he inspects a tattoo on a girls arm in a way that makes her uncomfortable. * in the second he invites an assistant to what seems to be a date. She feels uncomfortable. He shakes her hand in a weird way. * in the third he is accused of drugging and raping a girl. Obviously a very serious accusation. the first two do not seem noteworthy to me. NdT interacts with a lot of people. Who among us hasn't accidentally made someone uncomfortable? A weird semi-date gone wrong. Anyone attempting to be friendly is going to occasionally be too friendly. The third is an incredibly serious accusation. Its probably not a good idea to publish all allegations on Wikipedia, i think it only makes sense to publish creditable accusation. Determining whether or not the accusation is credible isn't really Wikipedia's mission. Encyclopedia's shouldn't be speculating. Posting it give its credibility and Wikipedia needs to take that responsibility seriously. Wikipedia needs to outsource the job of determining credibility... maybe to the legal system? So i would say it definitely makes sense to not publish anything on the first two incidents. And it makes sense to publish something on the third incident only when formal charges are filed against him, and maybe only after a trial or plea deal is completed.","human_ref_B":"Wikipedia is not a source of news or current events, it is a source for facts. Despite what your high school teachers may have said, Wikipedia does not run on hearsay. There are plenty of places online to find the newest information in the investigation. But, for the purpose that Wikipedia is designed to serve, it makes more sense to let it all play out and then include the entire story at once with all of the facts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16644.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"a5923j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV Neil Degrasse Tyson's Wikipedia page should mention the accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him So, just for a little bit of background, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a famous science popularizer and he was recently accused by three women of sexual misconduct. The accusations are reported in the Washington Post ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/science\/2018\/12\/01\/neil-degrasse-tyson-under-investigation-after-accusations-sexual-misconduct\/ ) and discussed in the Scientific American blog ( https:\/\/blogs.scientificamerican.com\/observations\/sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-neil-degrasse-tyson-reveal-the-complexity-of-academic-inequality\/ ). These claims are the subject of an investigation by National Geographic and Fox ( https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/entertainment\/tv\/neil-degrasse-tyson-investigated-by-fox-natgeo-networks\/2018\/11\/30\/ab38382a-f520-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html ) NdT has responded. ( https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/notes\/neil-degrasse-tyson\/on-being-accused\/10156870826326613\/?__tn__=-R ) Now, I don't want to spend time on the claims themselves here or on NdT's character. I think a lot of his work popularizing science is highly valuable. What I want to draw your attention to is his Wikipedia page (2018-12-11 9am PDT) where no mention of these allegations is made. Mind you, this is now 11 days after the WaPo article breaking the news and 3 days after NdT's response. Looking at the talk page, ( https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson ) you will see an argument about the appropriateness of including these claims. (I did not participate in that discussion.) A lot of the argument is phrased in wikipedia jargon which I am not fluent in, but something about reliable sources and rules regarding the biographies of living persons seem at issue. So, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules, but my lay person's understanding of them is that if a fact is significant-enough and reliable sources for it are provided, it should be included. The significance seems obvious. NdT himself felt the need to write a long response. Which he presumably would not have if it was not significant. His employers (or maybe he just contracts with NatGeo and Fox) have felt the need to start an investigation. The reliability of the sources (WaPo mostly) is not really in question. So I'm forced to conclude that Wikipedia should mention on NdT's article that 1. He was accused of sexual misconduct. 2. He responded to those accusations. 3. He is being investigated. But as hinted at above, the minutiae of Wikipedia rules escape me. So maybe I'm wrong. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"eblgcc8","c_root_id_B":"ebl11k3","created_at_utc_A":1544570011,"created_at_utc_B":1544558576,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"based on visvya comment the relevant question seems to be this. are these accusations news or are they relevant information about the man. I did read NdT's responses. * in the first incident he inspects a tattoo on a girls arm in a way that makes her uncomfortable. * in the second he invites an assistant to what seems to be a date. She feels uncomfortable. He shakes her hand in a weird way. * in the third he is accused of drugging and raping a girl. Obviously a very serious accusation. the first two do not seem noteworthy to me. NdT interacts with a lot of people. Who among us hasn't accidentally made someone uncomfortable? A weird semi-date gone wrong. Anyone attempting to be friendly is going to occasionally be too friendly. The third is an incredibly serious accusation. Its probably not a good idea to publish all allegations on Wikipedia, i think it only makes sense to publish creditable accusation. Determining whether or not the accusation is credible isn't really Wikipedia's mission. Encyclopedia's shouldn't be speculating. Posting it give its credibility and Wikipedia needs to take that responsibility seriously. Wikipedia needs to outsource the job of determining credibility... maybe to the legal system? So i would say it definitely makes sense to not publish anything on the first two incidents. And it makes sense to publish something on the third incident only when formal charges are filed against him, and maybe only after a trial or plea deal is completed.","human_ref_B":"No ones stopping you from doing it. Put it under the controversy tab.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11435.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1aycsb","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I'm a Catholic, and our respected Cardinal says that seeking legal actions against priests accused of sexual abuse will just \"add to the pain\". I do not see any wisdom in that. CMV Here is the article related to his statements: http:\/\/www.gmanetwork.com\/news\/story\/297154\/news\/nation\/tagle-care-for-victim-sex-abuser-is-asian-way-to-healing","c_root_id_A":"c91veca","c_root_id_B":"c91vgfp","created_at_utc_A":1364183160,"created_at_utc_B":1364183345,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"From a purely utilitarian view, the role of punishment is to deter future crimes. If the church is truly cured of pedophilia and cover ups, then the punishment will not aid in reducing future crimes (0 is as small as it gets). So spending money to sue the church is inefficient.","human_ref_B":"I'm sure the Cardinal thinks he's doing the right thing. He's probably looking at it from what he perceives to be an eternal perspective. F*** that. Any priest that committed these acts should face the full force of their respective country's justice system. Let God sort out their souls. DISCLAIMER: I am agnostic\/atheist. EDIT: To address the CMV, I think the Cardinal is wrong and your view is correct. Anyone who advocates for leniency or forbearance for child rapists\/molesters is off their rocker. Edit 2: to properly address the CMV, the Priest is likely considering this from an eternal perspective, not our Earthbound temporal viewpoint. If one believes ultimate punishment lies in the hands of God, perhaps it's not the aberration of justice it appears to be.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":185.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"a8oxob","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Trump was right to pull the troops out of Syria I am not remotely a Trump supporter, but it's occurred to me that this latest reason for everyone to pile onto him isn't a very good one. There was no supportable reason to have American soldiers fighting in Syria. ISIS exists there because of the collapse of Assad's control of the country, and will continue to exist until Assad regains control of the country, which the Russians are already helping him do, because Syria is in the Russian sphere of influence and always has been and will be because of its naval facilities. There's no reason why Americans should want their fingerprints on the process of propping up Assad's murderous regime, and since the Russians would never agree to a regime change, that's the only choice. Americans risking their lives at great public expense to shoot Arabs (some terrorists and some collateral damage) in defence of a sadistic, Russian-controlled dictator engaged in a civil war against his own people is not good foreign policy. The only defensible use of American resources would be to foster and protect an independent Kurdistan in the region, and there's no evidence that the American government intended to do anything of the sort, because it would infuriate Turkey, who the government doesn't want to offend because of the critical American air base at Incirlik. A broken clock is right twice a day. Trump is right to get the hell out of Syria.","c_root_id_A":"eccolph","c_root_id_B":"eccie5a","created_at_utc_A":1545523693,"created_at_utc_B":1545518375,"score_A":87,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"For me, the question of whether or not we should have entered into this conflict is different from if we should withdraw. We have found again and again that rapid withdraw from conflict creates a vacuum that is likely to be filled by something. Likely something worse than what we see now. We saw that the withdrawal from Iraq allowed leeway for ISIS to make its rise, that rapid withdrawal from Vietnam allowed the Khmer Rouge to massacre millions in Cambodia, and yet leaving troops in Korea, Japan, and Germany allowed no vacuum to ensue. The Turkish are already hoping to massacre the Kurds in Syria, Assad has gassed his own citizens in the past. By withdrawing we will likely foster genocide and potentially even a fully fledged proxy war throughout the Middle East such as, or drastically worse than, the one currently taking place in Yemen. I do not necessarily agree that we should have entered the conflict, but withdrawal could have drastic side effects that may not occur if a stay behind force is implemented to protect those in conflict with dictatorial governments such as the Assad regime and the Turks.","human_ref_B":"I agree that getting out of Syria was the correct strategic decision, but also agree with others that Trump\u2019s decision was the worst way to do it. To look at two major reasons: 1) Pulling out does have downsides and risks. Our allies like the Kurds will be at risk, our rivals like Russia and Iran will be strengthened, and our enemies like ISIS may not be defeated for good. Now, I want out of Syria so I have to accept some of these consequences. But there\u2019s a difference between telling the national security complex \u201cI want out of Syria, you have six months to do it so come up with a plan, including how best to announce it,\u201d and surprising everyone one afternoon. One approach gives you a chance to minimize those downside risks, the other probably makes them worse. The best analogy I can think of is deciding you can\u2019t afford your house. One way to deal with that is to spend a few months packing up, cleaning it up and putting it on the market to sell. The other approach is to just drive away one night and let the bank deal with it. 2) Since others want us to leave, our decision to leave is potentially worth something to them. So we could have potentially negotiated something in return for a decision to depart. Maybe it\u2019s a more preferable outcome in Syria, maybe it\u2019s something somewhere else entirely. But randomly announcing a decision one afternoon means we get nothing in return. We had something to sell and we decided to give it away instead.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5318.0,"score_ratio":3.1071428571} {"post_id":"a8oxob","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Trump was right to pull the troops out of Syria I am not remotely a Trump supporter, but it's occurred to me that this latest reason for everyone to pile onto him isn't a very good one. There was no supportable reason to have American soldiers fighting in Syria. ISIS exists there because of the collapse of Assad's control of the country, and will continue to exist until Assad regains control of the country, which the Russians are already helping him do, because Syria is in the Russian sphere of influence and always has been and will be because of its naval facilities. There's no reason why Americans should want their fingerprints on the process of propping up Assad's murderous regime, and since the Russians would never agree to a regime change, that's the only choice. Americans risking their lives at great public expense to shoot Arabs (some terrorists and some collateral damage) in defence of a sadistic, Russian-controlled dictator engaged in a civil war against his own people is not good foreign policy. The only defensible use of American resources would be to foster and protect an independent Kurdistan in the region, and there's no evidence that the American government intended to do anything of the sort, because it would infuriate Turkey, who the government doesn't want to offend because of the critical American air base at Incirlik. A broken clock is right twice a day. Trump is right to get the hell out of Syria.","c_root_id_A":"eccolph","c_root_id_B":"eccg1ek","created_at_utc_A":1545523693,"created_at_utc_B":1545516360,"score_A":87,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"For me, the question of whether or not we should have entered into this conflict is different from if we should withdraw. We have found again and again that rapid withdraw from conflict creates a vacuum that is likely to be filled by something. Likely something worse than what we see now. We saw that the withdrawal from Iraq allowed leeway for ISIS to make its rise, that rapid withdrawal from Vietnam allowed the Khmer Rouge to massacre millions in Cambodia, and yet leaving troops in Korea, Japan, and Germany allowed no vacuum to ensue. The Turkish are already hoping to massacre the Kurds in Syria, Assad has gassed his own citizens in the past. By withdrawing we will likely foster genocide and potentially even a fully fledged proxy war throughout the Middle East such as, or drastically worse than, the one currently taking place in Yemen. I do not necessarily agree that we should have entered the conflict, but withdrawal could have drastic side effects that may not occur if a stay behind force is implemented to protect those in conflict with dictatorial governments such as the Assad regime and the Turks.","human_ref_B":"Regardless of the merits of the decision to withdraw out of Syria, the lack of preparation was a terrible decision. President Trump didn't consult with senior staff to draw up a withdrawal plan. He didn't provide advanced notice to allies. Instead, he just publicly announced it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7333.0,"score_ratio":21.75} {"post_id":"a8oxob","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Trump was right to pull the troops out of Syria I am not remotely a Trump supporter, but it's occurred to me that this latest reason for everyone to pile onto him isn't a very good one. There was no supportable reason to have American soldiers fighting in Syria. ISIS exists there because of the collapse of Assad's control of the country, and will continue to exist until Assad regains control of the country, which the Russians are already helping him do, because Syria is in the Russian sphere of influence and always has been and will be because of its naval facilities. There's no reason why Americans should want their fingerprints on the process of propping up Assad's murderous regime, and since the Russians would never agree to a regime change, that's the only choice. Americans risking their lives at great public expense to shoot Arabs (some terrorists and some collateral damage) in defence of a sadistic, Russian-controlled dictator engaged in a civil war against his own people is not good foreign policy. The only defensible use of American resources would be to foster and protect an independent Kurdistan in the region, and there's no evidence that the American government intended to do anything of the sort, because it would infuriate Turkey, who the government doesn't want to offend because of the critical American air base at Incirlik. A broken clock is right twice a day. Trump is right to get the hell out of Syria.","c_root_id_A":"eccg1ek","c_root_id_B":"eccie5a","created_at_utc_A":1545516360,"created_at_utc_B":1545518375,"score_A":4,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Regardless of the merits of the decision to withdraw out of Syria, the lack of preparation was a terrible decision. President Trump didn't consult with senior staff to draw up a withdrawal plan. He didn't provide advanced notice to allies. Instead, he just publicly announced it.","human_ref_B":"I agree that getting out of Syria was the correct strategic decision, but also agree with others that Trump\u2019s decision was the worst way to do it. To look at two major reasons: 1) Pulling out does have downsides and risks. Our allies like the Kurds will be at risk, our rivals like Russia and Iran will be strengthened, and our enemies like ISIS may not be defeated for good. Now, I want out of Syria so I have to accept some of these consequences. But there\u2019s a difference between telling the national security complex \u201cI want out of Syria, you have six months to do it so come up with a plan, including how best to announce it,\u201d and surprising everyone one afternoon. One approach gives you a chance to minimize those downside risks, the other probably makes them worse. The best analogy I can think of is deciding you can\u2019t afford your house. One way to deal with that is to spend a few months packing up, cleaning it up and putting it on the market to sell. The other approach is to just drive away one night and let the bank deal with it. 2) Since others want us to leave, our decision to leave is potentially worth something to them. So we could have potentially negotiated something in return for a decision to depart. Maybe it\u2019s a more preferable outcome in Syria, maybe it\u2019s something somewhere else entirely. But randomly announcing a decision one afternoon means we get nothing in return. We had something to sell and we decided to give it away instead.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2015.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"a8oxob","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Trump was right to pull the troops out of Syria I am not remotely a Trump supporter, but it's occurred to me that this latest reason for everyone to pile onto him isn't a very good one. There was no supportable reason to have American soldiers fighting in Syria. ISIS exists there because of the collapse of Assad's control of the country, and will continue to exist until Assad regains control of the country, which the Russians are already helping him do, because Syria is in the Russian sphere of influence and always has been and will be because of its naval facilities. There's no reason why Americans should want their fingerprints on the process of propping up Assad's murderous regime, and since the Russians would never agree to a regime change, that's the only choice. Americans risking their lives at great public expense to shoot Arabs (some terrorists and some collateral damage) in defence of a sadistic, Russian-controlled dictator engaged in a civil war against his own people is not good foreign policy. The only defensible use of American resources would be to foster and protect an independent Kurdistan in the region, and there's no evidence that the American government intended to do anything of the sort, because it would infuriate Turkey, who the government doesn't want to offend because of the critical American air base at Incirlik. A broken clock is right twice a day. Trump is right to get the hell out of Syria.","c_root_id_A":"eccg1ek","c_root_id_B":"eccyppd","created_at_utc_A":1545516360,"created_at_utc_B":1545533247,"score_A":4,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Regardless of the merits of the decision to withdraw out of Syria, the lack of preparation was a terrible decision. President Trump didn't consult with senior staff to draw up a withdrawal plan. He didn't provide advanced notice to allies. Instead, he just publicly announced it.","human_ref_B":"Hey man, I don\u2019t know where to go from here. It doesn\u2019t look like I\u2019m gonna change your mind but it was a really interesting discussion. Cheers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16887.0,"score_ratio":4.75} {"post_id":"a8oxob","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Trump was right to pull the troops out of Syria I am not remotely a Trump supporter, but it's occurred to me that this latest reason for everyone to pile onto him isn't a very good one. There was no supportable reason to have American soldiers fighting in Syria. ISIS exists there because of the collapse of Assad's control of the country, and will continue to exist until Assad regains control of the country, which the Russians are already helping him do, because Syria is in the Russian sphere of influence and always has been and will be because of its naval facilities. There's no reason why Americans should want their fingerprints on the process of propping up Assad's murderous regime, and since the Russians would never agree to a regime change, that's the only choice. Americans risking their lives at great public expense to shoot Arabs (some terrorists and some collateral damage) in defence of a sadistic, Russian-controlled dictator engaged in a civil war against his own people is not good foreign policy. The only defensible use of American resources would be to foster and protect an independent Kurdistan in the region, and there's no evidence that the American government intended to do anything of the sort, because it would infuriate Turkey, who the government doesn't want to offend because of the critical American air base at Incirlik. A broken clock is right twice a day. Trump is right to get the hell out of Syria.","c_root_id_A":"ecd4gpa","c_root_id_B":"ecdad8e","created_at_utc_A":1545538830,"created_at_utc_B":1545545475,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Trump made his proclamation via tweet, completely blindsiding his own administration, including the Pentagon and his Secretary of Defense, as well as the various u.s. allies in the region. His willingness to make a major strategic decision without consulting anyone with expertise on the situation first creates enormous distrust of u.s. resolve in many unrelated areas, and makes foreign actors less likely to trust any other promises of support made by our country, because they know now that Trump will happily renege on those promises on a whim, with absolutely no warning. Even if pulling out of Syria *was* the right decision, he made that decision in absolutely the worst possible way, and making the right decision in a terrible way can be more harmful than making the wrong decision.","human_ref_B":"Just because you don't see what a viable solution could be doesn't mean it's justified to leave. There are plenty of reasons to stay even if there isn't a clear cut endgame. I'll go through a few: Power vaccum: Maybe there is an argument against the engagement in the first place but the reality is the US is there now. Leaving now is going to leave a massive power vaccum that will be filled either by an ISIS resurgence or a brutal recapture of power by the Assad regime bolstered by Iran and Russia. The Assad side has already shown a willingness to use chemical weapons against their own population and its my belief the only thing keeping that in check to this point is the risk of American collateral damage in on of these attacks. With US troops gone, they will have no reason to hold back. There is no longer another shoe that could drop. Purely from a humanitarian standpoint the US has reason to stay. Make no mistake the responsibility for the brutalities that we are going to hear about over the coming months rests, in part, on Trump's shoulders. From a local perspective, leaving now is the equivalent of bailing water out of a boat and failing to fix the leak. The water is just going to rush back in and the last 10ish years of effort will be for nothing. Ive seen the other counter arguments of \"but this is how it'll end anyways\" and I'll address what the US could do instead at the end. Reigonal interests: With the world turning against Saudia Arabia because of the slain journalist, there are few regional powers to counter balance Iran, which is in essence a Russian proxy. Leaving is essentially a cessesion of power to the Russians which, from a US perspective, ought to be a bad thing especially in light of their more belligerent approach to Ukraine recently. The US is giving up an established military presence and leaving it to Turkey, who has all but said their interest is in killing Kurds. Allied interests: Israel is a major US ally and pulling out of Syria has major security implications for them. It gives a direct corridor for Iran to arm hezbollah and Hamas. This might not be a bad thing in your mind, and people generally don't care for the US-Israel relationship but the reality is they are an ally. In a time when trump is treating alliances like toilet paper pulling out of Syria once again says to the world that all the US cares about is \"what have you done for me recently\". The point is the withdrawal could have had a better plan attached to it. Instead Trump is just fully pulling out. No concessions from the Assad regime, no promises from Turkey not to start committing genocide, they haven't even really defeated ISIS. They could have replaced military engagement with diplomatic engagement. Crafted a treaty. Trump is supposed to be the master negotiator and yet he's getting nothing out of this. If I'm being totally cynical I think he figured \"bringing the troops home\" would get him a ratings bump, and now people will die horrifically so his ego can manage to get through another news cycle.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6645.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfof715","c_root_id_B":"cfojson","created_at_utc_A":1393350902,"created_at_utc_B":1393359856,"score_A":35,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"you're wrong in using the term \"hillbilly\" because a lot of wealthy and mainstream people also venerate the confederate flag.","human_ref_B":"Interestingly, the flag of Texas doesn't have the same connotations as the Confederate flag, but Texas' origin as an independent republic and state are closely tied to slavery. Today, however, the Texan flag is seen as mostly harmless regional pride. I think there was a time not long ago when the Confederate flag could have had a similar connotation. Ascribing bad motives to persons waving the Confederate flag without discovering their actual motives diminishes the chance that it could be a benign symbol of regional pride. As more people subscribe to the \"hilbilly swastika\" point of view, the more socially outcast Confederate flag-wearers become, even if they only wearing a Lynyrd Skynrd t-shirt.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8954.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfoi9kk","c_root_id_B":"cfojson","created_at_utc_A":1393356883,"created_at_utc_B":1393359856,"score_A":21,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"I'm not one for flying the flag but I respect people's right to fly whatever flag they'd like. I used to be completely anti-Confederate flag before moving to the South. Now I'm neutral towards it. I definitely don't assume someone is a racist for flying it, though I've met racists who associate with it. One of the most passionate speeches I've heard for pro-flag was from one of my favorite, brilliant professors who was deeply southern. He was proud of the flag because he was proud of the south and his ancestors who died fighting for their people. He can trace his ancestry back to Confederate soldiers. Compared to the North, the South lost nearly half of its men. This had a huge toll on civilization in the south, rebuilding what was lost. For those reasons, I see no problem with it.","human_ref_B":"Interestingly, the flag of Texas doesn't have the same connotations as the Confederate flag, but Texas' origin as an independent republic and state are closely tied to slavery. Today, however, the Texan flag is seen as mostly harmless regional pride. I think there was a time not long ago when the Confederate flag could have had a similar connotation. Ascribing bad motives to persons waving the Confederate flag without discovering their actual motives diminishes the chance that it could be a benign symbol of regional pride. As more people subscribe to the \"hilbilly swastika\" point of view, the more socially outcast Confederate flag-wearers become, even if they only wearing a Lynyrd Skynrd t-shirt.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2973.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfoftda","c_root_id_B":"cfojson","created_at_utc_A":1393352125,"created_at_utc_B":1393359856,"score_A":18,"score_B":70,"human_ref_A":"It's funny that the Confederate battle flag has acquired more infamy as time passes from the conflict. You'd think that if anyone would object to symbols of the Confederacy, it would be the actual men who faced the bullets and bayonets of the CSA. Turns out, most of them were able to forgive and forget at [reunions]. (http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/1913_Gettysburg_reunion). But here we are, with no skin the game, born a hundred years or more after the conflict ended, being more judgmental than the actual combatants.","human_ref_B":"Interestingly, the flag of Texas doesn't have the same connotations as the Confederate flag, but Texas' origin as an independent republic and state are closely tied to slavery. Today, however, the Texan flag is seen as mostly harmless regional pride. I think there was a time not long ago when the Confederate flag could have had a similar connotation. Ascribing bad motives to persons waving the Confederate flag without discovering their actual motives diminishes the chance that it could be a benign symbol of regional pride. As more people subscribe to the \"hilbilly swastika\" point of view, the more socially outcast Confederate flag-wearers become, even if they only wearing a Lynyrd Skynrd t-shirt.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7731.0,"score_ratio":3.8888888889} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfojson","c_root_id_B":"cfoi9uv","created_at_utc_A":1393359856,"created_at_utc_B":1393356898,"score_A":70,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Interestingly, the flag of Texas doesn't have the same connotations as the Confederate flag, but Texas' origin as an independent republic and state are closely tied to slavery. Today, however, the Texan flag is seen as mostly harmless regional pride. I think there was a time not long ago when the Confederate flag could have had a similar connotation. Ascribing bad motives to persons waving the Confederate flag without discovering their actual motives diminishes the chance that it could be a benign symbol of regional pride. As more people subscribe to the \"hilbilly swastika\" point of view, the more socially outcast Confederate flag-wearers become, even if they only wearing a Lynyrd Skynrd t-shirt.","human_ref_B":"I just wanted to chime in and say that it's not only a southern US thing. I live in Saskatchewan, which is predominantly rural in demographic, and I see people displaying it with pride and prominence fairly often. In Alberta (the next province west) it is even more prominent. I have never gotten a chance to ask someone why exactly they do that, but from the type of people that I see displaying it, it's not because they are proud to be from south of the Mason-Dixon line or something; it's the type of people who think that the phrase \"WHITE POWER\" is a convincing and relevant argument.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2958.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfoo8r0","c_root_id_B":"cfof715","created_at_utc_A":1393368370,"created_at_utc_B":1393350902,"score_A":37,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"The question is one of whether there is a justifiable reason to fly the Confederate flag that does not implicitly endorse racism. The South's specific objection at the time of the Civil War was that the North did not have the authority to force the South to accept the hegemony of the U.S. federal government. Slavery was the issue that precipitated the war, but the war was not fought over the question of whether slavery ought be permitted, but rather over whether the South ought to be able to determine this for itself. A person who believes strongly in state's rights could support the South's position on hegemony, even if he does not support the specific cause that brought the South to wage war over the issue. To take a modern example, let's say you have a group of states that support abortion rights, and the federal government decides to make abortion illegal, and to crack down on abortion clinics by sending federal forces in to bust up the clinics and charge abortion doctors with murder. You'll doubtless have a group of people arguing that the federal government has no business doing this. Amongst this group, you might in fact discover some people who themselves *do* support criminalizing abortion, but believe it should be a state's rights issue. If you were to find such a person at a rally against the government's actions, and ask him why he supports abortion, he might take issue with your question for the same reason that someone flying the Confederate flag might take issue if you ask him why he supports racism. The argument which side of an issue is the right side is a different dispute from the argument who gets to judge which side is right. It's possible one might suppose such person to be one of a rare breed, but in the U.S. this is not necessarily the case. One reason why guns are so popular in the U.S., and public programs like universal healthcare are less popular than in other modern democracies, is the fact that a sizable number of U.S. citizens has an abiding mistrust of, if not contempt for, the federal government and all its works. This view is particularly prominent in the South, partly on account of the perceived injustices of the federal government's meddling in the South during and after Reconstruction. (And if you travel through the South, you will find that this resentment goes back a long way indeed.) It is doubtless true that many racists fly the Confederate flag. Yet one can support states' rights to self rule without necessarily endorsing the cause that precipitates a particular conflict (slavery in the case of the Civil War, abortion in the case of my example). Under this interpretation, the Confederate flag becomes a regional variant of the Gadsden flag, which one will also see on the backs of pickup trucks, and carries a similar message advising outsiders to consider carefully the proper bounds of their authority.","human_ref_B":"you're wrong in using the term \"hillbilly\" because a lot of wealthy and mainstream people also venerate the confederate flag.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17468.0,"score_ratio":1.0571428571} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfoi9kk","c_root_id_B":"cfoo8r0","created_at_utc_A":1393356883,"created_at_utc_B":1393368370,"score_A":21,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"I'm not one for flying the flag but I respect people's right to fly whatever flag they'd like. I used to be completely anti-Confederate flag before moving to the South. Now I'm neutral towards it. I definitely don't assume someone is a racist for flying it, though I've met racists who associate with it. One of the most passionate speeches I've heard for pro-flag was from one of my favorite, brilliant professors who was deeply southern. He was proud of the flag because he was proud of the south and his ancestors who died fighting for their people. He can trace his ancestry back to Confederate soldiers. Compared to the North, the South lost nearly half of its men. This had a huge toll on civilization in the south, rebuilding what was lost. For those reasons, I see no problem with it.","human_ref_B":"The question is one of whether there is a justifiable reason to fly the Confederate flag that does not implicitly endorse racism. The South's specific objection at the time of the Civil War was that the North did not have the authority to force the South to accept the hegemony of the U.S. federal government. Slavery was the issue that precipitated the war, but the war was not fought over the question of whether slavery ought be permitted, but rather over whether the South ought to be able to determine this for itself. A person who believes strongly in state's rights could support the South's position on hegemony, even if he does not support the specific cause that brought the South to wage war over the issue. To take a modern example, let's say you have a group of states that support abortion rights, and the federal government decides to make abortion illegal, and to crack down on abortion clinics by sending federal forces in to bust up the clinics and charge abortion doctors with murder. You'll doubtless have a group of people arguing that the federal government has no business doing this. Amongst this group, you might in fact discover some people who themselves *do* support criminalizing abortion, but believe it should be a state's rights issue. If you were to find such a person at a rally against the government's actions, and ask him why he supports abortion, he might take issue with your question for the same reason that someone flying the Confederate flag might take issue if you ask him why he supports racism. The argument which side of an issue is the right side is a different dispute from the argument who gets to judge which side is right. It's possible one might suppose such person to be one of a rare breed, but in the U.S. this is not necessarily the case. One reason why guns are so popular in the U.S., and public programs like universal healthcare are less popular than in other modern democracies, is the fact that a sizable number of U.S. citizens has an abiding mistrust of, if not contempt for, the federal government and all its works. This view is particularly prominent in the South, partly on account of the perceived injustices of the federal government's meddling in the South during and after Reconstruction. (And if you travel through the South, you will find that this resentment goes back a long way indeed.) It is doubtless true that many racists fly the Confederate flag. Yet one can support states' rights to self rule without necessarily endorsing the cause that precipitates a particular conflict (slavery in the case of the Civil War, abortion in the case of my example). Under this interpretation, the Confederate flag becomes a regional variant of the Gadsden flag, which one will also see on the backs of pickup trucks, and carries a similar message advising outsiders to consider carefully the proper bounds of their authority.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11487.0,"score_ratio":1.7619047619} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfoo8r0","c_root_id_B":"cfoftda","created_at_utc_A":1393368370,"created_at_utc_B":1393352125,"score_A":37,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"The question is one of whether there is a justifiable reason to fly the Confederate flag that does not implicitly endorse racism. The South's specific objection at the time of the Civil War was that the North did not have the authority to force the South to accept the hegemony of the U.S. federal government. Slavery was the issue that precipitated the war, but the war was not fought over the question of whether slavery ought be permitted, but rather over whether the South ought to be able to determine this for itself. A person who believes strongly in state's rights could support the South's position on hegemony, even if he does not support the specific cause that brought the South to wage war over the issue. To take a modern example, let's say you have a group of states that support abortion rights, and the federal government decides to make abortion illegal, and to crack down on abortion clinics by sending federal forces in to bust up the clinics and charge abortion doctors with murder. You'll doubtless have a group of people arguing that the federal government has no business doing this. Amongst this group, you might in fact discover some people who themselves *do* support criminalizing abortion, but believe it should be a state's rights issue. If you were to find such a person at a rally against the government's actions, and ask him why he supports abortion, he might take issue with your question for the same reason that someone flying the Confederate flag might take issue if you ask him why he supports racism. The argument which side of an issue is the right side is a different dispute from the argument who gets to judge which side is right. It's possible one might suppose such person to be one of a rare breed, but in the U.S. this is not necessarily the case. One reason why guns are so popular in the U.S., and public programs like universal healthcare are less popular than in other modern democracies, is the fact that a sizable number of U.S. citizens has an abiding mistrust of, if not contempt for, the federal government and all its works. This view is particularly prominent in the South, partly on account of the perceived injustices of the federal government's meddling in the South during and after Reconstruction. (And if you travel through the South, you will find that this resentment goes back a long way indeed.) It is doubtless true that many racists fly the Confederate flag. Yet one can support states' rights to self rule without necessarily endorsing the cause that precipitates a particular conflict (slavery in the case of the Civil War, abortion in the case of my example). Under this interpretation, the Confederate flag becomes a regional variant of the Gadsden flag, which one will also see on the backs of pickup trucks, and carries a similar message advising outsiders to consider carefully the proper bounds of their authority.","human_ref_B":"It's funny that the Confederate battle flag has acquired more infamy as time passes from the conflict. You'd think that if anyone would object to symbols of the Confederacy, it would be the actual men who faced the bullets and bayonets of the CSA. Turns out, most of them were able to forgive and forget at [reunions]. (http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/1913_Gettysburg_reunion). But here we are, with no skin the game, born a hundred years or more after the conflict ended, being more judgmental than the actual combatants.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16245.0,"score_ratio":2.0555555556} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfomi9a","c_root_id_B":"cfoo8r0","created_at_utc_A":1393364939,"created_at_utc_B":1393368370,"score_A":18,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"Technically, the flag you're probably thinking of is not the actual confederate flag, despite some confusion it is probably correctly known as the the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Though it soon gained prominence and featured in different variations of many flags","human_ref_B":"The question is one of whether there is a justifiable reason to fly the Confederate flag that does not implicitly endorse racism. The South's specific objection at the time of the Civil War was that the North did not have the authority to force the South to accept the hegemony of the U.S. federal government. Slavery was the issue that precipitated the war, but the war was not fought over the question of whether slavery ought be permitted, but rather over whether the South ought to be able to determine this for itself. A person who believes strongly in state's rights could support the South's position on hegemony, even if he does not support the specific cause that brought the South to wage war over the issue. To take a modern example, let's say you have a group of states that support abortion rights, and the federal government decides to make abortion illegal, and to crack down on abortion clinics by sending federal forces in to bust up the clinics and charge abortion doctors with murder. You'll doubtless have a group of people arguing that the federal government has no business doing this. Amongst this group, you might in fact discover some people who themselves *do* support criminalizing abortion, but believe it should be a state's rights issue. If you were to find such a person at a rally against the government's actions, and ask him why he supports abortion, he might take issue with your question for the same reason that someone flying the Confederate flag might take issue if you ask him why he supports racism. The argument which side of an issue is the right side is a different dispute from the argument who gets to judge which side is right. It's possible one might suppose such person to be one of a rare breed, but in the U.S. this is not necessarily the case. One reason why guns are so popular in the U.S., and public programs like universal healthcare are less popular than in other modern democracies, is the fact that a sizable number of U.S. citizens has an abiding mistrust of, if not contempt for, the federal government and all its works. This view is particularly prominent in the South, partly on account of the perceived injustices of the federal government's meddling in the South during and after Reconstruction. (And if you travel through the South, you will find that this resentment goes back a long way indeed.) It is doubtless true that many racists fly the Confederate flag. Yet one can support states' rights to self rule without necessarily endorsing the cause that precipitates a particular conflict (slavery in the case of the Civil War, abortion in the case of my example). Under this interpretation, the Confederate flag becomes a regional variant of the Gadsden flag, which one will also see on the backs of pickup trucks, and carries a similar message advising outsiders to consider carefully the proper bounds of their authority.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3431.0,"score_ratio":2.0555555556} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfoo8r0","c_root_id_B":"cfoi9uv","created_at_utc_A":1393368370,"created_at_utc_B":1393356898,"score_A":37,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"The question is one of whether there is a justifiable reason to fly the Confederate flag that does not implicitly endorse racism. The South's specific objection at the time of the Civil War was that the North did not have the authority to force the South to accept the hegemony of the U.S. federal government. Slavery was the issue that precipitated the war, but the war was not fought over the question of whether slavery ought be permitted, but rather over whether the South ought to be able to determine this for itself. A person who believes strongly in state's rights could support the South's position on hegemony, even if he does not support the specific cause that brought the South to wage war over the issue. To take a modern example, let's say you have a group of states that support abortion rights, and the federal government decides to make abortion illegal, and to crack down on abortion clinics by sending federal forces in to bust up the clinics and charge abortion doctors with murder. You'll doubtless have a group of people arguing that the federal government has no business doing this. Amongst this group, you might in fact discover some people who themselves *do* support criminalizing abortion, but believe it should be a state's rights issue. If you were to find such a person at a rally against the government's actions, and ask him why he supports abortion, he might take issue with your question for the same reason that someone flying the Confederate flag might take issue if you ask him why he supports racism. The argument which side of an issue is the right side is a different dispute from the argument who gets to judge which side is right. It's possible one might suppose such person to be one of a rare breed, but in the U.S. this is not necessarily the case. One reason why guns are so popular in the U.S., and public programs like universal healthcare are less popular than in other modern democracies, is the fact that a sizable number of U.S. citizens has an abiding mistrust of, if not contempt for, the federal government and all its works. This view is particularly prominent in the South, partly on account of the perceived injustices of the federal government's meddling in the South during and after Reconstruction. (And if you travel through the South, you will find that this resentment goes back a long way indeed.) It is doubtless true that many racists fly the Confederate flag. Yet one can support states' rights to self rule without necessarily endorsing the cause that precipitates a particular conflict (slavery in the case of the Civil War, abortion in the case of my example). Under this interpretation, the Confederate flag becomes a regional variant of the Gadsden flag, which one will also see on the backs of pickup trucks, and carries a similar message advising outsiders to consider carefully the proper bounds of their authority.","human_ref_B":"I just wanted to chime in and say that it's not only a southern US thing. I live in Saskatchewan, which is predominantly rural in demographic, and I see people displaying it with pride and prominence fairly often. In Alberta (the next province west) it is even more prominent. I have never gotten a chance to ask someone why exactly they do that, but from the type of people that I see displaying it, it's not because they are proud to be from south of the Mason-Dixon line or something; it's the type of people who think that the phrase \"WHITE POWER\" is a convincing and relevant argument.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11472.0,"score_ratio":2.6428571429} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfoftda","c_root_id_B":"cfoi9kk","created_at_utc_A":1393352125,"created_at_utc_B":1393356883,"score_A":18,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"It's funny that the Confederate battle flag has acquired more infamy as time passes from the conflict. You'd think that if anyone would object to symbols of the Confederacy, it would be the actual men who faced the bullets and bayonets of the CSA. Turns out, most of them were able to forgive and forget at [reunions]. (http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/1913_Gettysburg_reunion). But here we are, with no skin the game, born a hundred years or more after the conflict ended, being more judgmental than the actual combatants.","human_ref_B":"I'm not one for flying the flag but I respect people's right to fly whatever flag they'd like. I used to be completely anti-Confederate flag before moving to the South. Now I'm neutral towards it. I definitely don't assume someone is a racist for flying it, though I've met racists who associate with it. One of the most passionate speeches I've heard for pro-flag was from one of my favorite, brilliant professors who was deeply southern. He was proud of the flag because he was proud of the south and his ancestors who died fighting for their people. He can trace his ancestry back to Confederate soldiers. Compared to the North, the South lost nearly half of its men. This had a huge toll on civilization in the south, rebuilding what was lost. For those reasons, I see no problem with it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4758.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"1ywoue","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"I think the Confederate flag is nothing but a Hillbilly Swastika. CMV. First off let me say I dont really have any skin in this game. None of my ancestors were combatants that I know of and no one was ever a slave However, everytime some controversy breaks out surrounding the use of the flag all i can think is that it used to be the national symbol of a country that fought 4 bitter years of war in an attempt to hold onto the institution of slavery. I cant think of any other flag that people display so proudly that has its roots in sivh an evil origin. What am i missing? CMV","c_root_id_A":"cfomi9a","c_root_id_B":"cfoi9uv","created_at_utc_A":1393364939,"created_at_utc_B":1393356898,"score_A":18,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Technically, the flag you're probably thinking of is not the actual confederate flag, despite some confusion it is probably correctly known as the the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Though it soon gained prominence and featured in different variations of many flags","human_ref_B":"I just wanted to chime in and say that it's not only a southern US thing. I live in Saskatchewan, which is predominantly rural in demographic, and I see people displaying it with pride and prominence fairly often. In Alberta (the next province west) it is even more prominent. I have never gotten a chance to ask someone why exactly they do that, but from the type of people that I see displaying it, it's not because they are proud to be from south of the Mason-Dixon line or something; it's the type of people who think that the phrase \"WHITE POWER\" is a convincing and relevant argument.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8041.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3kadx","c_root_id_B":"ho3sn0v","created_at_utc_A":1639210821,"created_at_utc_B":1639217411,"score_A":376,"score_B":412,"human_ref_A":"That's just your own conception of evil though. To me, evil is intrinsically linked to actual consequences. Someone who wants to shoot up a mall is less evil if their gun jams - but still evil, because they might try to do it again. Why should your conception of evil be considered the correct one?","human_ref_B":"I would argue that actions of evil help prove the *commitment* to evil. Everyone in this world can have bad thoughts, be since we don't act on those thoughts, we never face the consequences of what would happen if those thoughts took place. When faced with those consequences, we might reconsider our original stance. Your hobo example with the big red button is interesting, but does not quite demonstrate how evil hobo is. If that button killed 100 hundred people at a time, would the hobo continue to push the button after the first push? There are lot of gung ho people out there that completely lose it once the shit hits the fan. I would argue that perhaps the hobo would have a change of heart. We don't know that for sure, but it is possible. The hobo's initial belief of evil is irrelevant because evil is not only an instant vague belief, but steadfast commitment. Hitler remains more evil than the hobo because Hitler proved with *continuing* of action that he desired to cause harm. Hitler proved with his actions an not only with his words that he was willing to push the red button over and over again because he did push it over and over again. Hitler could have stopped many times, but remained firm. Very few people are test as much as Hitler was, and Hitler passed each test as they came (passing meaning that he stayed true to evil). In other words, evil acts should be used to judge how evil a person is because it helps demonstrate if person can back up their beliefs with their actions. Making a single assertion that you want to do evil is not the same as continuing to make that assertion as you start to see the blood and bodies stacking up. You say that people like Hitler have no evil superpower, but I suggest that being able to remain committed to evil once you see how the evil is affecting people is a superpower.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6590.0,"score_ratio":1.0957446809} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3ncbw","c_root_id_B":"ho3sn0v","created_at_utc_A":1639213205,"created_at_utc_B":1639217411,"score_A":33,"score_B":412,"human_ref_A":"> Hitler is not the most evil person in the world\u2019s history. It doesn\u2019t make sense to have this discussion without defining what evil is and how you measure it at first place. Hell, there\u2019re some people who\u2019d argue Hitler wasn\u2019t even evil. If you setup a framework to compare people in terms of evilness, we may argue about who\u2019s the worst (or if we agree with your framework).","human_ref_B":"I would argue that actions of evil help prove the *commitment* to evil. Everyone in this world can have bad thoughts, be since we don't act on those thoughts, we never face the consequences of what would happen if those thoughts took place. When faced with those consequences, we might reconsider our original stance. Your hobo example with the big red button is interesting, but does not quite demonstrate how evil hobo is. If that button killed 100 hundred people at a time, would the hobo continue to push the button after the first push? There are lot of gung ho people out there that completely lose it once the shit hits the fan. I would argue that perhaps the hobo would have a change of heart. We don't know that for sure, but it is possible. The hobo's initial belief of evil is irrelevant because evil is not only an instant vague belief, but steadfast commitment. Hitler remains more evil than the hobo because Hitler proved with *continuing* of action that he desired to cause harm. Hitler proved with his actions an not only with his words that he was willing to push the red button over and over again because he did push it over and over again. Hitler could have stopped many times, but remained firm. Very few people are test as much as Hitler was, and Hitler passed each test as they came (passing meaning that he stayed true to evil). In other words, evil acts should be used to judge how evil a person is because it helps demonstrate if person can back up their beliefs with their actions. Making a single assertion that you want to do evil is not the same as continuing to make that assertion as you start to see the blood and bodies stacking up. You say that people like Hitler have no evil superpower, but I suggest that being able to remain committed to evil once you see how the evil is affecting people is a superpower.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4206.0,"score_ratio":12.4848484848} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3pd96","c_root_id_B":"ho3sn0v","created_at_utc_A":1639214846,"created_at_utc_B":1639217411,"score_A":26,"score_B":412,"human_ref_A":"Don't you think that there is something that makes a person who is willing to go through the entire process of gaining power to still misuse it more evil than the people who \"would if it was an option, but really don't care enough to?\" Like, for example - how many Palestinians would wish to see Israel reduced to ashes? Whether this is evil or not is not the question. Those ones who live their lives, unmotivated to manifest this into reality are less evil than those who would kill innocents (again, this is not to decontextualize or demonize Palestinian Liberation fighting). Some people theoretically believe in monarchy. Some people actively try to sabotage democracy. These are not the same evils. Then there's the reality that until people go through with an act, there's a sort of moral superpositioning going on. I could say I really want to kill someone or something. I could see a stray cat and the thought could cross my mind that I want to try to kill that cat. But if I don't reach for that cat to kill the cat, am I evil? What if I do but I can't bring myself to hurt it? I understand what you mean, and you are right, these men are not more evil for their sins having a wider impact, but they are remarkably evil for working to make their sins have those impacts. Many men are as awful and fail every day. Few men are as awful and don't try any day.","human_ref_B":"I would argue that actions of evil help prove the *commitment* to evil. Everyone in this world can have bad thoughts, be since we don't act on those thoughts, we never face the consequences of what would happen if those thoughts took place. When faced with those consequences, we might reconsider our original stance. Your hobo example with the big red button is interesting, but does not quite demonstrate how evil hobo is. If that button killed 100 hundred people at a time, would the hobo continue to push the button after the first push? There are lot of gung ho people out there that completely lose it once the shit hits the fan. I would argue that perhaps the hobo would have a change of heart. We don't know that for sure, but it is possible. The hobo's initial belief of evil is irrelevant because evil is not only an instant vague belief, but steadfast commitment. Hitler remains more evil than the hobo because Hitler proved with *continuing* of action that he desired to cause harm. Hitler proved with his actions an not only with his words that he was willing to push the red button over and over again because he did push it over and over again. Hitler could have stopped many times, but remained firm. Very few people are test as much as Hitler was, and Hitler passed each test as they came (passing meaning that he stayed true to evil). In other words, evil acts should be used to judge how evil a person is because it helps demonstrate if person can back up their beliefs with their actions. Making a single assertion that you want to do evil is not the same as continuing to make that assertion as you start to see the blood and bodies stacking up. You say that people like Hitler have no evil superpower, but I suggest that being able to remain committed to evil once you see how the evil is affecting people is a superpower.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2565.0,"score_ratio":15.8461538462} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3sn0v","c_root_id_B":"ho3s002","created_at_utc_A":1639217411,"created_at_utc_B":1639216923,"score_A":412,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I would argue that actions of evil help prove the *commitment* to evil. Everyone in this world can have bad thoughts, be since we don't act on those thoughts, we never face the consequences of what would happen if those thoughts took place. When faced with those consequences, we might reconsider our original stance. Your hobo example with the big red button is interesting, but does not quite demonstrate how evil hobo is. If that button killed 100 hundred people at a time, would the hobo continue to push the button after the first push? There are lot of gung ho people out there that completely lose it once the shit hits the fan. I would argue that perhaps the hobo would have a change of heart. We don't know that for sure, but it is possible. The hobo's initial belief of evil is irrelevant because evil is not only an instant vague belief, but steadfast commitment. Hitler remains more evil than the hobo because Hitler proved with *continuing* of action that he desired to cause harm. Hitler proved with his actions an not only with his words that he was willing to push the red button over and over again because he did push it over and over again. Hitler could have stopped many times, but remained firm. Very few people are test as much as Hitler was, and Hitler passed each test as they came (passing meaning that he stayed true to evil). In other words, evil acts should be used to judge how evil a person is because it helps demonstrate if person can back up their beliefs with their actions. Making a single assertion that you want to do evil is not the same as continuing to make that assertion as you start to see the blood and bodies stacking up. You say that people like Hitler have no evil superpower, but I suggest that being able to remain committed to evil once you see how the evil is affecting people is a superpower.","human_ref_B":"I won't really try to change your mind over whether Hitler or Stalin, or any of the countless others were the \"most evil\". What I will try to change your mind is why people might consider them most evil. You've already encountered some of them in this thread, actually. The people who abide by consequentialism, i.e., the moral goodness or badness of any action is determined by the consequences. So an action is morally good, if the consequences are good. If I hit you in the head with a crowbar but you survive and during your appointment with the doctor, discover a tumour and can have curative surgery and go on to live a happy life, I am actually a good person. Consider the classic trolley problem - the consequentialist will always choose the option that saves the most people. For the greater good. (Note that there are degrees of consequentialism as well - how do you determine the saving worthiness of the people, how far in the future you consider consequences and so on; that is something I won't consider). You, on the other hand, seem to be operating on a deontological framework more akin to Kantian philosophy. The goodness or a badness of an action, according to you, is not the consequences of the action but the intent. Some things are just wrong. Lying. Killing without reason. Kant uses the categorical imperative to determine what is good and bad. Things aren't good or bad because of their consequences but a priori reasoning determines if they are or are not. This also leads to issues however. And we could go into depth on them as well but I will not do so here. Essentially, my point is, what determines \"evilness\" may be consequences. Or it may be deontological. So the argument you really should be having is whether consequentialism or deontology is the correct moral philosophy and which among their many subsets is the correct moral philosophy to determine what is good and what is evil. Mayhaps all of them are incorrect. Perhaps something like Moral Particularism is the way to go. Perhaps it is the Ethics of Care. Perhaps it is something we haven't yet discovered. Or perhaps, it is none of the above and moral realism is a flawed position to hold.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":488.0,"score_ratio":18.7272727273} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3ngiu","c_root_id_B":"ho3sn0v","created_at_utc_A":1639213298,"created_at_utc_B":1639217411,"score_A":8,"score_B":412,"human_ref_A":"Honestly you\u2019re right, but also it really is splitting hairs between most evil people and most effective at being evil people. If we isolate the most evil person ever to exist and it turns out it\u2019s some random guy in idk let\u2019s say Ming China in some back village and the only thing of note they did is kill one other person also forgotten to history, but they _are_ the most evil person ever by whatever metric we\u2019re measuring by\u2026 Nobody\u2019s going to give a toss basically.","human_ref_B":"I would argue that actions of evil help prove the *commitment* to evil. Everyone in this world can have bad thoughts, be since we don't act on those thoughts, we never face the consequences of what would happen if those thoughts took place. When faced with those consequences, we might reconsider our original stance. Your hobo example with the big red button is interesting, but does not quite demonstrate how evil hobo is. If that button killed 100 hundred people at a time, would the hobo continue to push the button after the first push? There are lot of gung ho people out there that completely lose it once the shit hits the fan. I would argue that perhaps the hobo would have a change of heart. We don't know that for sure, but it is possible. The hobo's initial belief of evil is irrelevant because evil is not only an instant vague belief, but steadfast commitment. Hitler remains more evil than the hobo because Hitler proved with *continuing* of action that he desired to cause harm. Hitler proved with his actions an not only with his words that he was willing to push the red button over and over again because he did push it over and over again. Hitler could have stopped many times, but remained firm. Very few people are test as much as Hitler was, and Hitler passed each test as they came (passing meaning that he stayed true to evil). In other words, evil acts should be used to judge how evil a person is because it helps demonstrate if person can back up their beliefs with their actions. Making a single assertion that you want to do evil is not the same as continuing to make that assertion as you start to see the blood and bodies stacking up. You say that people like Hitler have no evil superpower, but I suggest that being able to remain committed to evil once you see how the evil is affecting people is a superpower.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4113.0,"score_ratio":51.5} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3sn0v","c_root_id_B":"ho3ki61","created_at_utc_A":1639217411,"created_at_utc_B":1639210982,"score_A":412,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I would argue that actions of evil help prove the *commitment* to evil. Everyone in this world can have bad thoughts, be since we don't act on those thoughts, we never face the consequences of what would happen if those thoughts took place. When faced with those consequences, we might reconsider our original stance. Your hobo example with the big red button is interesting, but does not quite demonstrate how evil hobo is. If that button killed 100 hundred people at a time, would the hobo continue to push the button after the first push? There are lot of gung ho people out there that completely lose it once the shit hits the fan. I would argue that perhaps the hobo would have a change of heart. We don't know that for sure, but it is possible. The hobo's initial belief of evil is irrelevant because evil is not only an instant vague belief, but steadfast commitment. Hitler remains more evil than the hobo because Hitler proved with *continuing* of action that he desired to cause harm. Hitler proved with his actions an not only with his words that he was willing to push the red button over and over again because he did push it over and over again. Hitler could have stopped many times, but remained firm. Very few people are test as much as Hitler was, and Hitler passed each test as they came (passing meaning that he stayed true to evil). In other words, evil acts should be used to judge how evil a person is because it helps demonstrate if person can back up their beliefs with their actions. Making a single assertion that you want to do evil is not the same as continuing to make that assertion as you start to see the blood and bodies stacking up. You say that people like Hitler have no evil superpower, but I suggest that being able to remain committed to evil once you see how the evil is affecting people is a superpower.","human_ref_B":"The \"most evil\" person (in the way it's most commonly referenced here) obviously implies the most infamous evil character in history, though. Surely there are far more evil people who have lived that never became well-known. So while I agree, I think you're over literalizing the concept.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6429.0,"score_ratio":137.3333333333} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3ki61","c_root_id_B":"ho3ncbw","created_at_utc_A":1639210982,"created_at_utc_B":1639213205,"score_A":3,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"The \"most evil\" person (in the way it's most commonly referenced here) obviously implies the most infamous evil character in history, though. Surely there are far more evil people who have lived that never became well-known. So while I agree, I think you're over literalizing the concept.","human_ref_B":"> Hitler is not the most evil person in the world\u2019s history. It doesn\u2019t make sense to have this discussion without defining what evil is and how you measure it at first place. Hell, there\u2019re some people who\u2019d argue Hitler wasn\u2019t even evil. If you setup a framework to compare people in terms of evilness, we may argue about who\u2019s the worst (or if we agree with your framework).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2223.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3pd96","c_root_id_B":"ho3ngiu","created_at_utc_A":1639214846,"created_at_utc_B":1639213298,"score_A":26,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Don't you think that there is something that makes a person who is willing to go through the entire process of gaining power to still misuse it more evil than the people who \"would if it was an option, but really don't care enough to?\" Like, for example - how many Palestinians would wish to see Israel reduced to ashes? Whether this is evil or not is not the question. Those ones who live their lives, unmotivated to manifest this into reality are less evil than those who would kill innocents (again, this is not to decontextualize or demonize Palestinian Liberation fighting). Some people theoretically believe in monarchy. Some people actively try to sabotage democracy. These are not the same evils. Then there's the reality that until people go through with an act, there's a sort of moral superpositioning going on. I could say I really want to kill someone or something. I could see a stray cat and the thought could cross my mind that I want to try to kill that cat. But if I don't reach for that cat to kill the cat, am I evil? What if I do but I can't bring myself to hurt it? I understand what you mean, and you are right, these men are not more evil for their sins having a wider impact, but they are remarkably evil for working to make their sins have those impacts. Many men are as awful and fail every day. Few men are as awful and don't try any day.","human_ref_B":"Honestly you\u2019re right, but also it really is splitting hairs between most evil people and most effective at being evil people. If we isolate the most evil person ever to exist and it turns out it\u2019s some random guy in idk let\u2019s say Ming China in some back village and the only thing of note they did is kill one other person also forgotten to history, but they _are_ the most evil person ever by whatever metric we\u2019re measuring by\u2026 Nobody\u2019s going to give a toss basically.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1548.0,"score_ratio":3.25} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3ki61","c_root_id_B":"ho3pd96","created_at_utc_A":1639210982,"created_at_utc_B":1639214846,"score_A":3,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"The \"most evil\" person (in the way it's most commonly referenced here) obviously implies the most infamous evil character in history, though. Surely there are far more evil people who have lived that never became well-known. So while I agree, I think you're over literalizing the concept.","human_ref_B":"Don't you think that there is something that makes a person who is willing to go through the entire process of gaining power to still misuse it more evil than the people who \"would if it was an option, but really don't care enough to?\" Like, for example - how many Palestinians would wish to see Israel reduced to ashes? Whether this is evil or not is not the question. Those ones who live their lives, unmotivated to manifest this into reality are less evil than those who would kill innocents (again, this is not to decontextualize or demonize Palestinian Liberation fighting). Some people theoretically believe in monarchy. Some people actively try to sabotage democracy. These are not the same evils. Then there's the reality that until people go through with an act, there's a sort of moral superpositioning going on. I could say I really want to kill someone or something. I could see a stray cat and the thought could cross my mind that I want to try to kill that cat. But if I don't reach for that cat to kill the cat, am I evil? What if I do but I can't bring myself to hurt it? I understand what you mean, and you are right, these men are not more evil for their sins having a wider impact, but they are remarkably evil for working to make their sins have those impacts. Many men are as awful and fail every day. Few men are as awful and don't try any day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3864.0,"score_ratio":8.6666666667} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3s002","c_root_id_B":"ho3ngiu","created_at_utc_A":1639216923,"created_at_utc_B":1639213298,"score_A":22,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I won't really try to change your mind over whether Hitler or Stalin, or any of the countless others were the \"most evil\". What I will try to change your mind is why people might consider them most evil. You've already encountered some of them in this thread, actually. The people who abide by consequentialism, i.e., the moral goodness or badness of any action is determined by the consequences. So an action is morally good, if the consequences are good. If I hit you in the head with a crowbar but you survive and during your appointment with the doctor, discover a tumour and can have curative surgery and go on to live a happy life, I am actually a good person. Consider the classic trolley problem - the consequentialist will always choose the option that saves the most people. For the greater good. (Note that there are degrees of consequentialism as well - how do you determine the saving worthiness of the people, how far in the future you consider consequences and so on; that is something I won't consider). You, on the other hand, seem to be operating on a deontological framework more akin to Kantian philosophy. The goodness or a badness of an action, according to you, is not the consequences of the action but the intent. Some things are just wrong. Lying. Killing without reason. Kant uses the categorical imperative to determine what is good and bad. Things aren't good or bad because of their consequences but a priori reasoning determines if they are or are not. This also leads to issues however. And we could go into depth on them as well but I will not do so here. Essentially, my point is, what determines \"evilness\" may be consequences. Or it may be deontological. So the argument you really should be having is whether consequentialism or deontology is the correct moral philosophy and which among their many subsets is the correct moral philosophy to determine what is good and what is evil. Mayhaps all of them are incorrect. Perhaps something like Moral Particularism is the way to go. Perhaps it is the Ethics of Care. Perhaps it is something we haven't yet discovered. Or perhaps, it is none of the above and moral realism is a flawed position to hold.","human_ref_B":"Honestly you\u2019re right, but also it really is splitting hairs between most evil people and most effective at being evil people. If we isolate the most evil person ever to exist and it turns out it\u2019s some random guy in idk let\u2019s say Ming China in some back village and the only thing of note they did is kill one other person also forgotten to history, but they _are_ the most evil person ever by whatever metric we\u2019re measuring by\u2026 Nobody\u2019s going to give a toss basically.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3625.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3s002","c_root_id_B":"ho3ki61","created_at_utc_A":1639216923,"created_at_utc_B":1639210982,"score_A":22,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I won't really try to change your mind over whether Hitler or Stalin, or any of the countless others were the \"most evil\". What I will try to change your mind is why people might consider them most evil. You've already encountered some of them in this thread, actually. The people who abide by consequentialism, i.e., the moral goodness or badness of any action is determined by the consequences. So an action is morally good, if the consequences are good. If I hit you in the head with a crowbar but you survive and during your appointment with the doctor, discover a tumour and can have curative surgery and go on to live a happy life, I am actually a good person. Consider the classic trolley problem - the consequentialist will always choose the option that saves the most people. For the greater good. (Note that there are degrees of consequentialism as well - how do you determine the saving worthiness of the people, how far in the future you consider consequences and so on; that is something I won't consider). You, on the other hand, seem to be operating on a deontological framework more akin to Kantian philosophy. The goodness or a badness of an action, according to you, is not the consequences of the action but the intent. Some things are just wrong. Lying. Killing without reason. Kant uses the categorical imperative to determine what is good and bad. Things aren't good or bad because of their consequences but a priori reasoning determines if they are or are not. This also leads to issues however. And we could go into depth on them as well but I will not do so here. Essentially, my point is, what determines \"evilness\" may be consequences. Or it may be deontological. So the argument you really should be having is whether consequentialism or deontology is the correct moral philosophy and which among their many subsets is the correct moral philosophy to determine what is good and what is evil. Mayhaps all of them are incorrect. Perhaps something like Moral Particularism is the way to go. Perhaps it is the Ethics of Care. Perhaps it is something we haven't yet discovered. Or perhaps, it is none of the above and moral realism is a flawed position to hold.","human_ref_B":"The \"most evil\" person (in the way it's most commonly referenced here) obviously implies the most infamous evil character in history, though. Surely there are far more evil people who have lived that never became well-known. So while I agree, I think you're over literalizing the concept.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5941.0,"score_ratio":7.3333333333} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3stkd","c_root_id_B":"ho3ngiu","created_at_utc_A":1639217552,"created_at_utc_B":1639213298,"score_A":13,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"People seem to be missing that, at its core, your point is merely that evil is determined by intention not action. It\u2019s entirely subject and impossible to change your view on this because it\u2019s not an evidence-based exercise, it is exclusively an argument as to how to decide evil. That being said, it is worth considering that there is no way to determine anyone\u2019s intentions or thoughts. The only way to figure out who a person is, is by their actions. If there was someone as fundamentally evil as Hitler who just wasn\u2019t in a position to commit those heinous acts, sure, they\u2019d still be just as evil. But you\u2019d never know it. It\u2019s impossible to really describe \u201cthe most evil man in history\u201d based on thoughts and feelings, so *if one attempts to do so* it has to be based on actions; there is no reasonable alternative.","human_ref_B":"Honestly you\u2019re right, but also it really is splitting hairs between most evil people and most effective at being evil people. If we isolate the most evil person ever to exist and it turns out it\u2019s some random guy in idk let\u2019s say Ming China in some back village and the only thing of note they did is kill one other person also forgotten to history, but they _are_ the most evil person ever by whatever metric we\u2019re measuring by\u2026 Nobody\u2019s going to give a toss basically.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4254.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3ki61","c_root_id_B":"ho3stkd","created_at_utc_A":1639210982,"created_at_utc_B":1639217552,"score_A":3,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"The \"most evil\" person (in the way it's most commonly referenced here) obviously implies the most infamous evil character in history, though. Surely there are far more evil people who have lived that never became well-known. So while I agree, I think you're over literalizing the concept.","human_ref_B":"People seem to be missing that, at its core, your point is merely that evil is determined by intention not action. It\u2019s entirely subject and impossible to change your view on this because it\u2019s not an evidence-based exercise, it is exclusively an argument as to how to decide evil. That being said, it is worth considering that there is no way to determine anyone\u2019s intentions or thoughts. The only way to figure out who a person is, is by their actions. If there was someone as fundamentally evil as Hitler who just wasn\u2019t in a position to commit those heinous acts, sure, they\u2019d still be just as evil. But you\u2019d never know it. It\u2019s impossible to really describe \u201cthe most evil man in history\u201d based on thoughts and feelings, so *if one attempts to do so* it has to be based on actions; there is no reasonable alternative.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6570.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} {"post_id":"rduzh5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness. I like to express this idea in the form of a thought experiment: Let's say I lock Hitler in a jail cell, just before the Night of Long Knives in 1934. Let's also say that by doing this, the trajectory of events in Nazi Germany that would eventually lead to World War 2 stops, dead in its tracks. As long as I keep him in jail, everything is paused. As soon as I let him out, he goes right back to being Chancellor, and the series of events leading to war resumes right where it stopped. The question is: would Hitler be *less evil* if I kept him in the jail cell forever? If he's kept in the cell, World War 2 never occurs. That's some ***eighty million people*** whose lives will be saved. The negative impact Hitler has on the world shrinks a thousandfold if he's never released. But in that cell, *Hitler still* ***wants*** *a World War to occur.* Given the *opportunity* - i.e., being released from his jail cell - he *would* act to ensure World War 2 occurs. It is this that makes me answer a strong *no* to my original question. Hitler is not any less evil if he's kept in the cell and his actions that make in the war occur are stopped. He's just as evil either way, because the thing that determines evil-ness, per se, is not the objective outcome of your actions, but the conscious intent of your actions. It's not what you *do,* it's what you *want* to do. It's what you *would* make happen, ***if you could.*** If I go to shoot up a mall, but my gun jams, I'm still evil, despite the fact my actions have resulted in no deaths, because I *wanted* to kill. Likewise, if I bake someone a pie but they die of a bad allergic reaction I didn't know they had, I'm not evil, because I didn't *want* to hurt them. Somewhere in the world right now, there's an incredibly anti-Semitic hobo living under a bridge that absolutely hates jews with every fibre of his being. If someone gave him a briefcase with a big red button inside that would kill all jews, he would press it instantly. To me, that makes him as evil as someone like Hitler ever was. The fact the hobo will never be in a position to commit genocide is irrelevant; the only difference between Hitler and the hobo is the objective impact they make, and that is a purely circumstantial distinction. Their intentions are as vile, and this means that all these reviled names we hear are in no way the *most evil* people to have existed. I suppose I just dislike it when we refer to these people as *the most* evil people, because it suggests that there is something uniquely unattainable, something grossly alien, about just how black-hearted they are. I think it's much more important to recognise that really, they were no more evil than any other dime-a-dozen fascist supremacists. We all have the capacity to do disgustingly evil things, but these men just happened to be born in a place, time, and standing, that they could act on those really not-that-rare prejudices, to horrible effect.","c_root_id_A":"ho3ki61","c_root_id_B":"ho3ngiu","created_at_utc_A":1639210982,"created_at_utc_B":1639213298,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The \"most evil\" person (in the way it's most commonly referenced here) obviously implies the most infamous evil character in history, though. Surely there are far more evil people who have lived that never became well-known. So while I agree, I think you're over literalizing the concept.","human_ref_B":"Honestly you\u2019re right, but also it really is splitting hairs between most evil people and most effective at being evil people. If we isolate the most evil person ever to exist and it turns out it\u2019s some random guy in idk let\u2019s say Ming China in some back village and the only thing of note they did is kill one other person also forgotten to history, but they _are_ the most evil person ever by whatever metric we\u2019re measuring by\u2026 Nobody\u2019s going to give a toss basically.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2316.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"x3buro","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: There is absolutely no reason to trust that the Roman Catholic Church is being honest about it's overall financial state. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is one of the oldest financial institutions in the world, and by that I mean to say is that they have a managed a steady cash flow, both inbound and outbound, continuously for longer than almost any other organization or agency in the world. In an annual disclosure from 2021, the Vatican claims that it took in \u20ac46.9 million and that it spent \u20ac65.3 million.^[1] But that disclosure was never confirmed by outside auditing bodies, the disclosure provides no supporting transactional data, and only discloses income from donations despite the fact that that other sources of income exist. To expand more on other sources of income outside of donations, the Vatican (the church's sovereign capital) also has a thriving tourism industry, a diverse international stock portfolio, and runs it's own private bank.^[2] The bank itself manages funds in the amount of \u20ac5 billion according to it's own disclosures^[3] but has been the subject of MULTIPLE financial criminal scandals^[4] due to the nature of it's location being in sovereign church jurisdiction that makes outside regulation difficult if not outright impossible. In it's own financial disclosure the church bank states: > T]he laws and other regulations issued by the Italian Republic are observed as supplementary, subject to prior approval by the competent Vatican authority. They are adopted on the condition that they do not conflict with the doctrine of Divine Law Meaning that they really only follow Italian laws and regulations when they want to. A disclosure from the ASAP (Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See - the an accounts management branch of the church) listed gross assets around \u20ac2.2 billion in 2021 and net assets (minus all liabilities) at a little less than \u20ac1.3 billion with most of the equity being listed as real estate assets.^[[5] however CBC News estimates the church's holdings in Canada to be, at it's most impossibly conservative estimate, to be around CDN $160 billion (or \u20ac122.2 billion or USD $121.4 billion).^[6] Additionally, Australian based Fairfax Media estimates the church's Australian real estate holdings to be worth nearly AUD $30 billion (or \u20ac20.4 billion or USD $20.3 billion).^[7] Now, I will concede that I did not double check the findings of either Fairfax or CBC News myself. However, both parties used publicly available information to reach these findings and I would presume that if there was evidence to the contrary that someone would have disputed these findings. I will not change my view if someone merely tries to say \"yeah but didn't check the findings yourself, Hitchen's Razor, you need to see the evidence with your own eyes\". I will need to see some tangible tabulated evidence of the contrary which I realize shifts the burden of proof in an unfair way but I really just don't want to have to do all of that work fact-checking on my own. If you want to compile records of Australian or Canadian real estate holdings of the church available through public information to prove me wrong then PLEASE DO, I invite it. But please show your work and cite your sources because I am not going to do that research. In conclusion, the church has been caught undervaluing their assets by multiple sources and refuses to be completely transparent with all of their accounting records. Conservative estimates from outside investigations put their valuations in the range of hundreds of billions of US dollars despite their insistence that they have less than that. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church's financial disclosures can be trusted and that they are being distinctly and intentionally dishonest in their representations.","c_root_id_A":"imonter","c_root_id_B":"imoliyo","created_at_utc_A":1662052993,"created_at_utc_B":1662052122,"score_A":33,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Firstly, the disclosures you cite aren't \"all income\" and \"all expenses\" of the vatican. They are a specific foundation - an account - within the vatican with a stated method of donation receipt and specific granting of monies to efforts. It would be fairly typical for an endowned organization to have expenses greater than receipts in a given year. I don't see this as particularly great evidence of fraudulent reporting and moreover it'd be an area where you'd not put any funkiness because it's income is subject to various domestic in-country financial reporting that would need to align to this total, or at least now show it as clearly wrong. Secondly, the reporting of the assets is complicated. For example, if an asset is fixed by rule of donation as illiquid - e.g. the church cannot legally sell it due to an encumbrance of how it was donated, zoned, etc. then it's _not of tradeable value_, aka - it's worth $0. You don't go and say \"land in this area with pretty buildings is $x per square foot\" to come up with asset value, it's got to be the fair market value and for a non-marketable asset that's $0. That's a LOT of the church. As for stuff that is in the vatican, it's a country. It's value as an asset is $0, just like you'd not get an asset value of a U.S. national park or the white house. You could _estimate_ it's value WERE it to be a marketable asset, but you'd not put it on your books. So...the holdings you see are often not the landmark assets you think of, but things like houses and office buildings that are owned by the church. Then you've got assets owned by the church vs. assets owned by groups affiliated with the church or who are under the church. I'm not sure how they report on these.","human_ref_B":"The Catholic Church has a complicated structure. Are all Catholic churches part of the Vatican? Or just the ones in Vatican City? How much is their artwork worth? If they donate money to a \"Catholic charity\" is that money still theirs or does it now belong to the charity? What if the charity donates the money back? What's the difference between income and wealth? What about technically profit losing companies that reinvest money internally (e.g., Amazon). There are a million nuances to accounting. If you don't like it, you call it money laundering\/tax evasion. If you do like it, you call it simple money management. It's not just the Catholic Church. Anyone can spin themselves as poor or rich depending on the political point they want to make. If you go to Harvard Law School and graduate with $100,000 in debt, you can say you're poorer than a kid in a slum in Rio De Janeiro because their net worth is $0 instead of -$100,000. Most Redditors describe themselves as poor victims of evil billionaires even though they are among the wealthiest humans on Earth. https:\/\/howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org\/how-rich-am-i?income I don't think the Catholic Church (or most people) are intentionally deceptive, at least more than is to be expected by any accountant. They are just selective about how they share information. They're not transparent, but they are under no obligation to be transparent. I'm sure the figures they share are technically true, even if they paint a misleading story. But you can trust the specific information they do share. This is different from fraud where the perpetrators intentionally lie about public information. Weirdly enough, I don't think even they have a nuanced view of their own finances. When billionaire investors on Wall Street can't come to a consensus about the value of a simple company (which is why the stock market bounces around every second), it's hard to imagine the Church can come to one either. Humans don't agree on many economic and financial principles. The money of the Catholic Church could entirely belong to the Pope, or the money could belong to every Catholic (or even human). You can spin it either way, and the ambiguity partly explains the Catholic Church's success. The times when the Pope has tried to claim the money solely belongs to him has led to mass schisms in the Church (e.g., Eastern Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic, Catholic vs. Protestant). As people become more financially and economically literate, they're questioning the Catholic Church more and more. The Church has a ton of money saved over the centuries, but people are becoming atheists at a remarkable rate so their new income is minimal. Ultimately, the Church is a weird organization and you can spin their finances in any way. The pope regularly explains why rich people would never get into heaven while wearing a chain that would make a rapper blush. Is he just getting you to donate money? Is he scamming you? Or is he right? Is his money just about charity and spreading the will of God? Are all popes in history equally good\/Godly? Or are popes and therefore the Catholic Church mere institutions of man and therefore fallible? The most likely answer is that they are trustworthy, but just as confused\/lost\/political when it comes to accounting as every other large organization.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":871.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714} {"post_id":"x3buro","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: There is absolutely no reason to trust that the Roman Catholic Church is being honest about it's overall financial state. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is one of the oldest financial institutions in the world, and by that I mean to say is that they have a managed a steady cash flow, both inbound and outbound, continuously for longer than almost any other organization or agency in the world. In an annual disclosure from 2021, the Vatican claims that it took in \u20ac46.9 million and that it spent \u20ac65.3 million.^[1] But that disclosure was never confirmed by outside auditing bodies, the disclosure provides no supporting transactional data, and only discloses income from donations despite the fact that that other sources of income exist. To expand more on other sources of income outside of donations, the Vatican (the church's sovereign capital) also has a thriving tourism industry, a diverse international stock portfolio, and runs it's own private bank.^[2] The bank itself manages funds in the amount of \u20ac5 billion according to it's own disclosures^[3] but has been the subject of MULTIPLE financial criminal scandals^[4] due to the nature of it's location being in sovereign church jurisdiction that makes outside regulation difficult if not outright impossible. In it's own financial disclosure the church bank states: > T]he laws and other regulations issued by the Italian Republic are observed as supplementary, subject to prior approval by the competent Vatican authority. They are adopted on the condition that they do not conflict with the doctrine of Divine Law Meaning that they really only follow Italian laws and regulations when they want to. A disclosure from the ASAP (Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See - the an accounts management branch of the church) listed gross assets around \u20ac2.2 billion in 2021 and net assets (minus all liabilities) at a little less than \u20ac1.3 billion with most of the equity being listed as real estate assets.^[[5] however CBC News estimates the church's holdings in Canada to be, at it's most impossibly conservative estimate, to be around CDN $160 billion (or \u20ac122.2 billion or USD $121.4 billion).^[6] Additionally, Australian based Fairfax Media estimates the church's Australian real estate holdings to be worth nearly AUD $30 billion (or \u20ac20.4 billion or USD $20.3 billion).^[7] Now, I will concede that I did not double check the findings of either Fairfax or CBC News myself. However, both parties used publicly available information to reach these findings and I would presume that if there was evidence to the contrary that someone would have disputed these findings. I will not change my view if someone merely tries to say \"yeah but didn't check the findings yourself, Hitchen's Razor, you need to see the evidence with your own eyes\". I will need to see some tangible tabulated evidence of the contrary which I realize shifts the burden of proof in an unfair way but I really just don't want to have to do all of that work fact-checking on my own. If you want to compile records of Australian or Canadian real estate holdings of the church available through public information to prove me wrong then PLEASE DO, I invite it. But please show your work and cite your sources because I am not going to do that research. In conclusion, the church has been caught undervaluing their assets by multiple sources and refuses to be completely transparent with all of their accounting records. Conservative estimates from outside investigations put their valuations in the range of hundreds of billions of US dollars despite their insistence that they have less than that. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church's financial disclosures can be trusted and that they are being distinctly and intentionally dishonest in their representations.","c_root_id_A":"imonter","c_root_id_B":"imokiq3","created_at_utc_A":1662052993,"created_at_utc_B":1662051733,"score_A":33,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Firstly, the disclosures you cite aren't \"all income\" and \"all expenses\" of the vatican. They are a specific foundation - an account - within the vatican with a stated method of donation receipt and specific granting of monies to efforts. It would be fairly typical for an endowned organization to have expenses greater than receipts in a given year. I don't see this as particularly great evidence of fraudulent reporting and moreover it'd be an area where you'd not put any funkiness because it's income is subject to various domestic in-country financial reporting that would need to align to this total, or at least now show it as clearly wrong. Secondly, the reporting of the assets is complicated. For example, if an asset is fixed by rule of donation as illiquid - e.g. the church cannot legally sell it due to an encumbrance of how it was donated, zoned, etc. then it's _not of tradeable value_, aka - it's worth $0. You don't go and say \"land in this area with pretty buildings is $x per square foot\" to come up with asset value, it's got to be the fair market value and for a non-marketable asset that's $0. That's a LOT of the church. As for stuff that is in the vatican, it's a country. It's value as an asset is $0, just like you'd not get an asset value of a U.S. national park or the white house. You could _estimate_ it's value WERE it to be a marketable asset, but you'd not put it on your books. So...the holdings you see are often not the landmark assets you think of, but things like houses and office buildings that are owned by the church. Then you've got assets owned by the church vs. assets owned by groups affiliated with the church or who are under the church. I'm not sure how they report on these.","human_ref_B":"Just a note about information in link #1. This is a special collection. So during mass they will pass an extra time for \"the pope\" (the oblo or obligation). Plus the direct funding to a specific email address. This is not including other donations to the Church at large, other sources of income (sales and other direct donations). The special collection might be conducted only in a few places and likely once a year. Their might be a completely different special collection every week! Anyways. My point is that while I also believe that the Vatican is under reporting stuff. This specific source is too small a piece to make any sort of decision on. It's like saying that Disney only made XX dollars off of food sales at Disney World and they must be under reporting their company income.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1260.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"x3buro","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: There is absolutely no reason to trust that the Roman Catholic Church is being honest about it's overall financial state. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is one of the oldest financial institutions in the world, and by that I mean to say is that they have a managed a steady cash flow, both inbound and outbound, continuously for longer than almost any other organization or agency in the world. In an annual disclosure from 2021, the Vatican claims that it took in \u20ac46.9 million and that it spent \u20ac65.3 million.^[1] But that disclosure was never confirmed by outside auditing bodies, the disclosure provides no supporting transactional data, and only discloses income from donations despite the fact that that other sources of income exist. To expand more on other sources of income outside of donations, the Vatican (the church's sovereign capital) also has a thriving tourism industry, a diverse international stock portfolio, and runs it's own private bank.^[2] The bank itself manages funds in the amount of \u20ac5 billion according to it's own disclosures^[3] but has been the subject of MULTIPLE financial criminal scandals^[4] due to the nature of it's location being in sovereign church jurisdiction that makes outside regulation difficult if not outright impossible. In it's own financial disclosure the church bank states: > T]he laws and other regulations issued by the Italian Republic are observed as supplementary, subject to prior approval by the competent Vatican authority. They are adopted on the condition that they do not conflict with the doctrine of Divine Law Meaning that they really only follow Italian laws and regulations when they want to. A disclosure from the ASAP (Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See - the an accounts management branch of the church) listed gross assets around \u20ac2.2 billion in 2021 and net assets (minus all liabilities) at a little less than \u20ac1.3 billion with most of the equity being listed as real estate assets.^[[5] however CBC News estimates the church's holdings in Canada to be, at it's most impossibly conservative estimate, to be around CDN $160 billion (or \u20ac122.2 billion or USD $121.4 billion).^[6] Additionally, Australian based Fairfax Media estimates the church's Australian real estate holdings to be worth nearly AUD $30 billion (or \u20ac20.4 billion or USD $20.3 billion).^[7] Now, I will concede that I did not double check the findings of either Fairfax or CBC News myself. However, both parties used publicly available information to reach these findings and I would presume that if there was evidence to the contrary that someone would have disputed these findings. I will not change my view if someone merely tries to say \"yeah but didn't check the findings yourself, Hitchen's Razor, you need to see the evidence with your own eyes\". I will need to see some tangible tabulated evidence of the contrary which I realize shifts the burden of proof in an unfair way but I really just don't want to have to do all of that work fact-checking on my own. If you want to compile records of Australian or Canadian real estate holdings of the church available through public information to prove me wrong then PLEASE DO, I invite it. But please show your work and cite your sources because I am not going to do that research. In conclusion, the church has been caught undervaluing their assets by multiple sources and refuses to be completely transparent with all of their accounting records. Conservative estimates from outside investigations put their valuations in the range of hundreds of billions of US dollars despite their insistence that they have less than that. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church's financial disclosures can be trusted and that they are being distinctly and intentionally dishonest in their representations.","c_root_id_A":"imokiq3","c_root_id_B":"imoliyo","created_at_utc_A":1662051733,"created_at_utc_B":1662052122,"score_A":6,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Just a note about information in link #1. This is a special collection. So during mass they will pass an extra time for \"the pope\" (the oblo or obligation). Plus the direct funding to a specific email address. This is not including other donations to the Church at large, other sources of income (sales and other direct donations). The special collection might be conducted only in a few places and likely once a year. Their might be a completely different special collection every week! Anyways. My point is that while I also believe that the Vatican is under reporting stuff. This specific source is too small a piece to make any sort of decision on. It's like saying that Disney only made XX dollars off of food sales at Disney World and they must be under reporting their company income.","human_ref_B":"The Catholic Church has a complicated structure. Are all Catholic churches part of the Vatican? Or just the ones in Vatican City? How much is their artwork worth? If they donate money to a \"Catholic charity\" is that money still theirs or does it now belong to the charity? What if the charity donates the money back? What's the difference between income and wealth? What about technically profit losing companies that reinvest money internally (e.g., Amazon). There are a million nuances to accounting. If you don't like it, you call it money laundering\/tax evasion. If you do like it, you call it simple money management. It's not just the Catholic Church. Anyone can spin themselves as poor or rich depending on the political point they want to make. If you go to Harvard Law School and graduate with $100,000 in debt, you can say you're poorer than a kid in a slum in Rio De Janeiro because their net worth is $0 instead of -$100,000. Most Redditors describe themselves as poor victims of evil billionaires even though they are among the wealthiest humans on Earth. https:\/\/howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org\/how-rich-am-i?income I don't think the Catholic Church (or most people) are intentionally deceptive, at least more than is to be expected by any accountant. They are just selective about how they share information. They're not transparent, but they are under no obligation to be transparent. I'm sure the figures they share are technically true, even if they paint a misleading story. But you can trust the specific information they do share. This is different from fraud where the perpetrators intentionally lie about public information. Weirdly enough, I don't think even they have a nuanced view of their own finances. When billionaire investors on Wall Street can't come to a consensus about the value of a simple company (which is why the stock market bounces around every second), it's hard to imagine the Church can come to one either. Humans don't agree on many economic and financial principles. The money of the Catholic Church could entirely belong to the Pope, or the money could belong to every Catholic (or even human). You can spin it either way, and the ambiguity partly explains the Catholic Church's success. The times when the Pope has tried to claim the money solely belongs to him has led to mass schisms in the Church (e.g., Eastern Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic, Catholic vs. Protestant). As people become more financially and economically literate, they're questioning the Catholic Church more and more. The Church has a ton of money saved over the centuries, but people are becoming atheists at a remarkable rate so their new income is minimal. Ultimately, the Church is a weird organization and you can spin their finances in any way. The pope regularly explains why rich people would never get into heaven while wearing a chain that would make a rapper blush. Is he just getting you to donate money? Is he scamming you? Or is he right? Is his money just about charity and spreading the will of God? Are all popes in history equally good\/Godly? Or are popes and therefore the Catholic Church mere institutions of man and therefore fallible? The most likely answer is that they are trustworthy, but just as confused\/lost\/political when it comes to accounting as every other large organization.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":389.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"x3buro","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: There is absolutely no reason to trust that the Roman Catholic Church is being honest about it's overall financial state. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is one of the oldest financial institutions in the world, and by that I mean to say is that they have a managed a steady cash flow, both inbound and outbound, continuously for longer than almost any other organization or agency in the world. In an annual disclosure from 2021, the Vatican claims that it took in \u20ac46.9 million and that it spent \u20ac65.3 million.^[1] But that disclosure was never confirmed by outside auditing bodies, the disclosure provides no supporting transactional data, and only discloses income from donations despite the fact that that other sources of income exist. To expand more on other sources of income outside of donations, the Vatican (the church's sovereign capital) also has a thriving tourism industry, a diverse international stock portfolio, and runs it's own private bank.^[2] The bank itself manages funds in the amount of \u20ac5 billion according to it's own disclosures^[3] but has been the subject of MULTIPLE financial criminal scandals^[4] due to the nature of it's location being in sovereign church jurisdiction that makes outside regulation difficult if not outright impossible. In it's own financial disclosure the church bank states: > T]he laws and other regulations issued by the Italian Republic are observed as supplementary, subject to prior approval by the competent Vatican authority. They are adopted on the condition that they do not conflict with the doctrine of Divine Law Meaning that they really only follow Italian laws and regulations when they want to. A disclosure from the ASAP (Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See - the an accounts management branch of the church) listed gross assets around \u20ac2.2 billion in 2021 and net assets (minus all liabilities) at a little less than \u20ac1.3 billion with most of the equity being listed as real estate assets.^[[5] however CBC News estimates the church's holdings in Canada to be, at it's most impossibly conservative estimate, to be around CDN $160 billion (or \u20ac122.2 billion or USD $121.4 billion).^[6] Additionally, Australian based Fairfax Media estimates the church's Australian real estate holdings to be worth nearly AUD $30 billion (or \u20ac20.4 billion or USD $20.3 billion).^[7] Now, I will concede that I did not double check the findings of either Fairfax or CBC News myself. However, both parties used publicly available information to reach these findings and I would presume that if there was evidence to the contrary that someone would have disputed these findings. I will not change my view if someone merely tries to say \"yeah but didn't check the findings yourself, Hitchen's Razor, you need to see the evidence with your own eyes\". I will need to see some tangible tabulated evidence of the contrary which I realize shifts the burden of proof in an unfair way but I really just don't want to have to do all of that work fact-checking on my own. If you want to compile records of Australian or Canadian real estate holdings of the church available through public information to prove me wrong then PLEASE DO, I invite it. But please show your work and cite your sources because I am not going to do that research. In conclusion, the church has been caught undervaluing their assets by multiple sources and refuses to be completely transparent with all of their accounting records. Conservative estimates from outside investigations put their valuations in the range of hundreds of billions of US dollars despite their insistence that they have less than that. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church's financial disclosures can be trusted and that they are being distinctly and intentionally dishonest in their representations.","c_root_id_A":"imos04q","c_root_id_B":"imokiq3","created_at_utc_A":1662054593,"created_at_utc_B":1662051733,"score_A":13,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"May I ask why you care so much about how much the church's assets are worth?","human_ref_B":"Just a note about information in link #1. This is a special collection. So during mass they will pass an extra time for \"the pope\" (the oblo or obligation). Plus the direct funding to a specific email address. This is not including other donations to the Church at large, other sources of income (sales and other direct donations). The special collection might be conducted only in a few places and likely once a year. Their might be a completely different special collection every week! Anyways. My point is that while I also believe that the Vatican is under reporting stuff. This specific source is too small a piece to make any sort of decision on. It's like saying that Disney only made XX dollars off of food sales at Disney World and they must be under reporting their company income.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2860.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667} {"post_id":"x3buro","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: There is absolutely no reason to trust that the Roman Catholic Church is being honest about it's overall financial state. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is one of the oldest financial institutions in the world, and by that I mean to say is that they have a managed a steady cash flow, both inbound and outbound, continuously for longer than almost any other organization or agency in the world. In an annual disclosure from 2021, the Vatican claims that it took in \u20ac46.9 million and that it spent \u20ac65.3 million.^[1] But that disclosure was never confirmed by outside auditing bodies, the disclosure provides no supporting transactional data, and only discloses income from donations despite the fact that that other sources of income exist. To expand more on other sources of income outside of donations, the Vatican (the church's sovereign capital) also has a thriving tourism industry, a diverse international stock portfolio, and runs it's own private bank.^[2] The bank itself manages funds in the amount of \u20ac5 billion according to it's own disclosures^[3] but has been the subject of MULTIPLE financial criminal scandals^[4] due to the nature of it's location being in sovereign church jurisdiction that makes outside regulation difficult if not outright impossible. In it's own financial disclosure the church bank states: > T]he laws and other regulations issued by the Italian Republic are observed as supplementary, subject to prior approval by the competent Vatican authority. They are adopted on the condition that they do not conflict with the doctrine of Divine Law Meaning that they really only follow Italian laws and regulations when they want to. A disclosure from the ASAP (Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See - the an accounts management branch of the church) listed gross assets around \u20ac2.2 billion in 2021 and net assets (minus all liabilities) at a little less than \u20ac1.3 billion with most of the equity being listed as real estate assets.^[[5] however CBC News estimates the church's holdings in Canada to be, at it's most impossibly conservative estimate, to be around CDN $160 billion (or \u20ac122.2 billion or USD $121.4 billion).^[6] Additionally, Australian based Fairfax Media estimates the church's Australian real estate holdings to be worth nearly AUD $30 billion (or \u20ac20.4 billion or USD $20.3 billion).^[7] Now, I will concede that I did not double check the findings of either Fairfax or CBC News myself. However, both parties used publicly available information to reach these findings and I would presume that if there was evidence to the contrary that someone would have disputed these findings. I will not change my view if someone merely tries to say \"yeah but didn't check the findings yourself, Hitchen's Razor, you need to see the evidence with your own eyes\". I will need to see some tangible tabulated evidence of the contrary which I realize shifts the burden of proof in an unfair way but I really just don't want to have to do all of that work fact-checking on my own. If you want to compile records of Australian or Canadian real estate holdings of the church available through public information to prove me wrong then PLEASE DO, I invite it. But please show your work and cite your sources because I am not going to do that research. In conclusion, the church has been caught undervaluing their assets by multiple sources and refuses to be completely transparent with all of their accounting records. Conservative estimates from outside investigations put their valuations in the range of hundreds of billions of US dollars despite their insistence that they have less than that. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church's financial disclosures can be trusted and that they are being distinctly and intentionally dishonest in their representations.","c_root_id_A":"imp4bn5","c_root_id_B":"imokiq3","created_at_utc_A":1662059335,"created_at_utc_B":1662051733,"score_A":13,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church's financial disclosures can be trusted and that they are being distinctly and intentionally dishonest in their representations. I'm not sure if intentionally dishonest is correct here. Accounting isn't as much of an exact science as we like to think of it as. Since this statement isn't being audited, or being held to any external standard, *who* explicitly are they being dishonest to? As an example: Am I being intentionally dishonest to tell a friend \"I make $100k a year\" even though i make $100k in salary from my job and $10k in annual investment returns? Most people would say no because that's a \"common\" way to represent how much you \"make\" to someone else. However if I report $100k instead of $110k income to the IRS, then yes that's clearly intentionally dishonest. In other words, It is only dishonest if there is some expectation or standard of the way those numbers should be formatted or calculated. The catholic church has no real higher authority to create such a standard. So who is to say its \"dishonest\" to exclude \"tourism\" from the church's income statement?","human_ref_B":"Just a note about information in link #1. This is a special collection. So during mass they will pass an extra time for \"the pope\" (the oblo or obligation). Plus the direct funding to a specific email address. This is not including other donations to the Church at large, other sources of income (sales and other direct donations). The special collection might be conducted only in a few places and likely once a year. Their might be a completely different special collection every week! Anyways. My point is that while I also believe that the Vatican is under reporting stuff. This specific source is too small a piece to make any sort of decision on. It's like saying that Disney only made XX dollars off of food sales at Disney World and they must be under reporting their company income.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7602.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667} {"post_id":"x3buro","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: There is absolutely no reason to trust that the Roman Catholic Church is being honest about it's overall financial state. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is one of the oldest financial institutions in the world, and by that I mean to say is that they have a managed a steady cash flow, both inbound and outbound, continuously for longer than almost any other organization or agency in the world. In an annual disclosure from 2021, the Vatican claims that it took in \u20ac46.9 million and that it spent \u20ac65.3 million.^[1] But that disclosure was never confirmed by outside auditing bodies, the disclosure provides no supporting transactional data, and only discloses income from donations despite the fact that that other sources of income exist. To expand more on other sources of income outside of donations, the Vatican (the church's sovereign capital) also has a thriving tourism industry, a diverse international stock portfolio, and runs it's own private bank.^[2] The bank itself manages funds in the amount of \u20ac5 billion according to it's own disclosures^[3] but has been the subject of MULTIPLE financial criminal scandals^[4] due to the nature of it's location being in sovereign church jurisdiction that makes outside regulation difficult if not outright impossible. In it's own financial disclosure the church bank states: > T]he laws and other regulations issued by the Italian Republic are observed as supplementary, subject to prior approval by the competent Vatican authority. They are adopted on the condition that they do not conflict with the doctrine of Divine Law Meaning that they really only follow Italian laws and regulations when they want to. A disclosure from the ASAP (Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See - the an accounts management branch of the church) listed gross assets around \u20ac2.2 billion in 2021 and net assets (minus all liabilities) at a little less than \u20ac1.3 billion with most of the equity being listed as real estate assets.^[[5] however CBC News estimates the church's holdings in Canada to be, at it's most impossibly conservative estimate, to be around CDN $160 billion (or \u20ac122.2 billion or USD $121.4 billion).^[6] Additionally, Australian based Fairfax Media estimates the church's Australian real estate holdings to be worth nearly AUD $30 billion (or \u20ac20.4 billion or USD $20.3 billion).^[7] Now, I will concede that I did not double check the findings of either Fairfax or CBC News myself. However, both parties used publicly available information to reach these findings and I would presume that if there was evidence to the contrary that someone would have disputed these findings. I will not change my view if someone merely tries to say \"yeah but didn't check the findings yourself, Hitchen's Razor, you need to see the evidence with your own eyes\". I will need to see some tangible tabulated evidence of the contrary which I realize shifts the burden of proof in an unfair way but I really just don't want to have to do all of that work fact-checking on my own. If you want to compile records of Australian or Canadian real estate holdings of the church available through public information to prove me wrong then PLEASE DO, I invite it. But please show your work and cite your sources because I am not going to do that research. In conclusion, the church has been caught undervaluing their assets by multiple sources and refuses to be completely transparent with all of their accounting records. Conservative estimates from outside investigations put their valuations in the range of hundreds of billions of US dollars despite their insistence that they have less than that. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church's financial disclosures can be trusted and that they are being distinctly and intentionally dishonest in their representations.","c_root_id_A":"imsnwkj","c_root_id_B":"imrlnfo","created_at_utc_A":1662126285,"created_at_utc_B":1662101040,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You get an upvote just for proper citation. Well done. On to the actual response: Of course the RCC is smoothing the edges on their announcement. That is expected. The question is not are they being completely open and transparent (hint: no) it is more about HOW open are they being. The amount of resources they own is obviously more than 1.3 billion, but those assets are also spread pretty broadly accross many banks and banking systems. It is very possible that the church's own internal bank is in possession of comparatively little of that wealth and the numbers are close to what is reported. Those internal workings are likely being reported close enough to be legally defensible but favorably stretched.","human_ref_B":"With the Catholic Church most of their failure in book keeping is just due to poor governance, and not corruption\/or nefarious reasons, even the related scandals are mostly misused\/mismanaged funds and not theft or corruption. Ultimately, the people in control of the holy see doesnt have that much motive to be financially corrupt anyway, they dont really have wealth to leave to their descendants, no point in buying expensive cars\/rolexes\/mansions with pool, no point in having luxury bags, shoes, clothes. Spending money and having wealth doesnt really do anything for them. Buying up expensive real estate are mostly used for communal activity, even their real estate assets are rented out at a loss, because they just want to keep the land\/building for future uses.It's not like mega churches where they have private jets, and yachts, and rolex collections. I'm not saying that they are good\/noble\/perfect, but corporations and politicians are corrupt for selfish financial gains, but with the holy see, there is not much they can do with financial gain\/wealth. The worst they can do is make a fancy looking church with misued funds, which is not really nefarious at all.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25245.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"x3buro","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: There is absolutely no reason to trust that the Roman Catholic Church is being honest about it's overall financial state. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is one of the oldest financial institutions in the world, and by that I mean to say is that they have a managed a steady cash flow, both inbound and outbound, continuously for longer than almost any other organization or agency in the world. In an annual disclosure from 2021, the Vatican claims that it took in \u20ac46.9 million and that it spent \u20ac65.3 million.^[1] But that disclosure was never confirmed by outside auditing bodies, the disclosure provides no supporting transactional data, and only discloses income from donations despite the fact that that other sources of income exist. To expand more on other sources of income outside of donations, the Vatican (the church's sovereign capital) also has a thriving tourism industry, a diverse international stock portfolio, and runs it's own private bank.^[2] The bank itself manages funds in the amount of \u20ac5 billion according to it's own disclosures^[3] but has been the subject of MULTIPLE financial criminal scandals^[4] due to the nature of it's location being in sovereign church jurisdiction that makes outside regulation difficult if not outright impossible. In it's own financial disclosure the church bank states: > T]he laws and other regulations issued by the Italian Republic are observed as supplementary, subject to prior approval by the competent Vatican authority. They are adopted on the condition that they do not conflict with the doctrine of Divine Law Meaning that they really only follow Italian laws and regulations when they want to. A disclosure from the ASAP (Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See - the an accounts management branch of the church) listed gross assets around \u20ac2.2 billion in 2021 and net assets (minus all liabilities) at a little less than \u20ac1.3 billion with most of the equity being listed as real estate assets.^[[5] however CBC News estimates the church's holdings in Canada to be, at it's most impossibly conservative estimate, to be around CDN $160 billion (or \u20ac122.2 billion or USD $121.4 billion).^[6] Additionally, Australian based Fairfax Media estimates the church's Australian real estate holdings to be worth nearly AUD $30 billion (or \u20ac20.4 billion or USD $20.3 billion).^[7] Now, I will concede that I did not double check the findings of either Fairfax or CBC News myself. However, both parties used publicly available information to reach these findings and I would presume that if there was evidence to the contrary that someone would have disputed these findings. I will not change my view if someone merely tries to say \"yeah but didn't check the findings yourself, Hitchen's Razor, you need to see the evidence with your own eyes\". I will need to see some tangible tabulated evidence of the contrary which I realize shifts the burden of proof in an unfair way but I really just don't want to have to do all of that work fact-checking on my own. If you want to compile records of Australian or Canadian real estate holdings of the church available through public information to prove me wrong then PLEASE DO, I invite it. But please show your work and cite your sources because I am not going to do that research. In conclusion, the church has been caught undervaluing their assets by multiple sources and refuses to be completely transparent with all of their accounting records. Conservative estimates from outside investigations put their valuations in the range of hundreds of billions of US dollars despite their insistence that they have less than that. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church's financial disclosures can be trusted and that they are being distinctly and intentionally dishonest in their representations.","c_root_id_A":"imrx4g2","c_root_id_B":"imsnwkj","created_at_utc_A":1662110691,"created_at_utc_B":1662126285,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Are you a protestant? As an Orthodox Christian, I've noticed that protestants have historically had and still have a weird fetish for hating on the Catholic Church. Like we had a schizm with them but we moved on and I'm not really interested in their finances because I'm not a Catholic. I've heard they're wealthy and that's it.","human_ref_B":"You get an upvote just for proper citation. Well done. On to the actual response: Of course the RCC is smoothing the edges on their announcement. That is expected. The question is not are they being completely open and transparent (hint: no) it is more about HOW open are they being. The amount of resources they own is obviously more than 1.3 billion, but those assets are also spread pretty broadly accross many banks and banking systems. It is very possible that the church's own internal bank is in possession of comparatively little of that wealth and the numbers are close to what is reported. Those internal workings are likely being reported close enough to be legally defensible but favorably stretched.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15594.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihumiw5","c_root_id_B":"ihuz2q9","created_at_utc_A":1658929111,"created_at_utc_B":1658934292,"score_A":44,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":">hard times are the default default of what? Of the universe? Of the normal outcome of human dna? Of recent history? Of modern western society? The real default is that everyone is dead and a liveless rock floats through space. Defaults don't matter, what matters is what we want our society to be like, and what we can reasonably achieve. >which will most likely hit the poorest anyway Every change, every upset to the system in any direction will do that. At first at least. Kinda by definition, that's what makes them the poorest. That's a bad argument against doing anything, doing nothing hurts them too. The real question is what the long term effects are going to be, how it will change who the poorest are and what their life will be like in 20-100 years.","human_ref_B":"> No one wants to take the hit. I get it. I mean, isn't this pretty much what you are advocating for? You are saying we should let the public workers take the L so that the rest of the economy doesn't suffer? You could raise certain taxes to cover the wage increase without increasing inflation... but then that would be shifting the hard times to someone else. The wealthy can afford to take the hit... start there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5181.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihum1wp","c_root_id_B":"ihuz2q9","created_at_utc_A":1658928900,"created_at_utc_B":1658934292,"score_A":24,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"While i think that several of the current things happening could reasonably be argued to be \"worse times\" i really dont think there have been what most people would consider \"good times\". This sort of argument gets into the territory of having jostalgia for how the past was better. The reason people want easy solutions, is because thats what constant propagandising tells them there is for things. Take brexit for example. Everyone was told by the daily mail and co that it would be the easiest negotiation in the world, and look how that turned out. I will say though, that working people having more money is absolutely the solution to the cost of living crisis. Its definitely *simple* in terms of that statement, but it becomes much more complex when you take into account that the people who have way more money than they will ever need dont want to give it up.","human_ref_B":"> No one wants to take the hit. I get it. I mean, isn't this pretty much what you are advocating for? You are saying we should let the public workers take the L so that the rest of the economy doesn't suffer? You could raise certain taxes to cover the wage increase without increasing inflation... but then that would be shifting the hard times to someone else. The wealthy can afford to take the hit... start there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5392.0,"score_ratio":3.2083333333} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihuqg8x","c_root_id_B":"ihuz2q9","created_at_utc_A":1658930810,"created_at_utc_B":1658934292,"score_A":19,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"It is weird though that whenever the hard times roll around the political and economic ruling class. They make all the decisions, and seem entirely unaffected by the consequences, in fact many of them getting drastically richer in the bad times. We have crashes and disasters and crashes, but when was the last time you heard about a former billionaire?","human_ref_B":"> No one wants to take the hit. I get it. I mean, isn't this pretty much what you are advocating for? You are saying we should let the public workers take the L so that the rest of the economy doesn't suffer? You could raise certain taxes to cover the wage increase without increasing inflation... but then that would be shifting the hard times to someone else. The wealthy can afford to take the hit... start there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3482.0,"score_ratio":4.0526315789} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihuz2q9","c_root_id_B":"ihurj1r","created_at_utc_A":1658934292,"created_at_utc_B":1658931260,"score_A":77,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"> No one wants to take the hit. I get it. I mean, isn't this pretty much what you are advocating for? You are saying we should let the public workers take the L so that the rest of the economy doesn't suffer? You could raise certain taxes to cover the wage increase without increasing inflation... but then that would be shifting the hard times to someone else. The wealthy can afford to take the hit... start there.","human_ref_B":">\t I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren\u2019t hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. I don\u2019t disagree with quite a bit of your post. People proposing stupidly simple solutions to complex problems they don\u2019t properly grasp is a feature of internet discourse. But this snippet also misses nuance, so I thought I\u2019d reply. \u201cNo one wants to take the hit\u201d is, I think, a little unfair to many of the people you\u2019re referring to. There are a chunk of people, myself included, who would be willing to pay more in taxes for improved social policies aimed at improving opportunity for the disadvantaged and reducing inequality. There are a further chunk of people who may not feel they\u2019re in a position to pay more but advocate for the wealthy and\/or higher earners to pay more towards this. This is a simple policy proposal. And it may come across as \u2018not wanting to pay the price\u2019 but it\u2019s also coherent and morally defensible. It\u2019s politically and economically possible. You can disagree with it, but that\u2019s not the same as hand waving it away.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3032.0,"score_ratio":4.0526315789} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihuz2q9","c_root_id_B":"ihuyzpp","created_at_utc_A":1658934292,"created_at_utc_B":1658934260,"score_A":77,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"> No one wants to take the hit. I get it. I mean, isn't this pretty much what you are advocating for? You are saying we should let the public workers take the L so that the rest of the economy doesn't suffer? You could raise certain taxes to cover the wage increase without increasing inflation... but then that would be shifting the hard times to someone else. The wealthy can afford to take the hit... start there.","human_ref_B":">Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. Do you agree that policy can have pretty profound impacts on quality of life? >Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. Okay. To be clear, I am **not** going to be defending the position that these problems are easily fixable. >We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** Can you clarify how increasing wages would be bad for people striking for increased wages? >I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested. It seems like you are upset that people are upset that things are getting rough. A lot of the cause for why things are getting rough is not blameless natural currents of god's will or something, it is the result of real people acting, and some of those people are acting greedily and maliciously.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32.0,"score_ratio":7.7} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihumw0p","c_root_id_B":"ihuz2q9","created_at_utc_A":1658929273,"created_at_utc_B":1658934292,"score_A":3,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"I get your point however i personnaly dont accept it because most of the current problems could have been avoided with \u00e0 little more wisdom from the leaders of countries. The lockdown is \u00e0 proof of bad m\u00e9dical sector for example. Im from France man i could wrote \u00e0 book about the problems we faced that can be directly linked to the flaws of our leaders. So yes easy ways exists, its just that the burden of it all will be on different people. Look for example there was a law in France, i dont know how to call it in english.. but the idea was to freeze prices of first necessity items. This restriction has been lifted but could have come back and was rejected in parlement. We even have ceo of supermarket arguing to change laws so that he can lower prices. Yeah dont be fooled by your sense of responsibility easy ways exists. And even more.. i pay those shmucks i expect them to do a good job. I'd be fire if i told my boss \"hey you know its hard, suck it up\" without breaking \u00e0 sweat. Nah things are easy, the more you dig the more you'll see it. Its just not done. Im not too clear im in a rush, but willing to clarify if you are interested in debating.","human_ref_B":"> No one wants to take the hit. I get it. I mean, isn't this pretty much what you are advocating for? You are saying we should let the public workers take the L so that the rest of the economy doesn't suffer? You could raise certain taxes to cover the wage increase without increasing inflation... but then that would be shifting the hard times to someone else. The wealthy can afford to take the hit... start there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5019.0,"score_ratio":25.6666666667} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihum1wp","c_root_id_B":"ihumiw5","created_at_utc_A":1658928900,"created_at_utc_B":1658929111,"score_A":24,"score_B":44,"human_ref_A":"While i think that several of the current things happening could reasonably be argued to be \"worse times\" i really dont think there have been what most people would consider \"good times\". This sort of argument gets into the territory of having jostalgia for how the past was better. The reason people want easy solutions, is because thats what constant propagandising tells them there is for things. Take brexit for example. Everyone was told by the daily mail and co that it would be the easiest negotiation in the world, and look how that turned out. I will say though, that working people having more money is absolutely the solution to the cost of living crisis. Its definitely *simple* in terms of that statement, but it becomes much more complex when you take into account that the people who have way more money than they will ever need dont want to give it up.","human_ref_B":">hard times are the default default of what? Of the universe? Of the normal outcome of human dna? Of recent history? Of modern western society? The real default is that everyone is dead and a liveless rock floats through space. Defaults don't matter, what matters is what we want our society to be like, and what we can reasonably achieve. >which will most likely hit the poorest anyway Every change, every upset to the system in any direction will do that. At first at least. Kinda by definition, that's what makes them the poorest. That's a bad argument against doing anything, doing nothing hurts them too. The real question is what the long term effects are going to be, how it will change who the poorest are and what their life will be like in 20-100 years.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":211.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihumw0p","c_root_id_B":"ihuqg8x","created_at_utc_A":1658929273,"created_at_utc_B":1658930810,"score_A":3,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"I get your point however i personnaly dont accept it because most of the current problems could have been avoided with \u00e0 little more wisdom from the leaders of countries. The lockdown is \u00e0 proof of bad m\u00e9dical sector for example. Im from France man i could wrote \u00e0 book about the problems we faced that can be directly linked to the flaws of our leaders. So yes easy ways exists, its just that the burden of it all will be on different people. Look for example there was a law in France, i dont know how to call it in english.. but the idea was to freeze prices of first necessity items. This restriction has been lifted but could have come back and was rejected in parlement. We even have ceo of supermarket arguing to change laws so that he can lower prices. Yeah dont be fooled by your sense of responsibility easy ways exists. And even more.. i pay those shmucks i expect them to do a good job. I'd be fire if i told my boss \"hey you know its hard, suck it up\" without breaking \u00e0 sweat. Nah things are easy, the more you dig the more you'll see it. Its just not done. Im not too clear im in a rush, but willing to clarify if you are interested in debating.","human_ref_B":"It is weird though that whenever the hard times roll around the political and economic ruling class. They make all the decisions, and seem entirely unaffected by the consequences, in fact many of them getting drastically richer in the bad times. We have crashes and disasters and crashes, but when was the last time you heard about a former billionaire?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1537.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihurj1r","c_root_id_B":"ihumw0p","created_at_utc_A":1658931260,"created_at_utc_B":1658929273,"score_A":19,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">\t I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren\u2019t hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. I don\u2019t disagree with quite a bit of your post. People proposing stupidly simple solutions to complex problems they don\u2019t properly grasp is a feature of internet discourse. But this snippet also misses nuance, so I thought I\u2019d reply. \u201cNo one wants to take the hit\u201d is, I think, a little unfair to many of the people you\u2019re referring to. There are a chunk of people, myself included, who would be willing to pay more in taxes for improved social policies aimed at improving opportunity for the disadvantaged and reducing inequality. There are a further chunk of people who may not feel they\u2019re in a position to pay more but advocate for the wealthy and\/or higher earners to pay more towards this. This is a simple policy proposal. And it may come across as \u2018not wanting to pay the price\u2019 but it\u2019s also coherent and morally defensible. It\u2019s politically and economically possible. You can disagree with it, but that\u2019s not the same as hand waving it away.","human_ref_B":"I get your point however i personnaly dont accept it because most of the current problems could have been avoided with \u00e0 little more wisdom from the leaders of countries. The lockdown is \u00e0 proof of bad m\u00e9dical sector for example. Im from France man i could wrote \u00e0 book about the problems we faced that can be directly linked to the flaws of our leaders. So yes easy ways exists, its just that the burden of it all will be on different people. Look for example there was a law in France, i dont know how to call it in english.. but the idea was to freeze prices of first necessity items. This restriction has been lifted but could have come back and was rejected in parlement. We even have ceo of supermarket arguing to change laws so that he can lower prices. Yeah dont be fooled by your sense of responsibility easy ways exists. And even more.. i pay those shmucks i expect them to do a good job. I'd be fire if i told my boss \"hey you know its hard, suck it up\" without breaking \u00e0 sweat. Nah things are easy, the more you dig the more you'll see it. Its just not done. Im not too clear im in a rush, but willing to clarify if you are interested in debating.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1987.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihvh0qy","c_root_id_B":"ihuyzpp","created_at_utc_A":1658941090,"created_at_utc_B":1658934260,"score_A":13,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"If these truly were \"hard times\", then it would be difficult for everyone. Instead, the average person struggles more while the wealthiest people are making *even more money*. A crisis for the average citizen is not a crisis for everyone - it's an opportunity to increase profits or consolidate power. Your example of the simple solution not actually being simple is missing what's really going on. Why is it that when a good has a shortage, the consumer suffers while the supplier maintains, or even *increases* profits? Why do people have to risk their livelihoods (striking, unionizing) in order to be paid a fair wage - when wages stay them same while a company's profits grow with inflation? Granted, this is coming from the perspective of a US citizen where our government throws billions, and more recently ***trillions*** of dollars at the top 1% when \"hard times\" occur. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/graphics\/2020\/business\/coronavirus-bailout-spending\/ https:\/\/ips-dc.org\/u-s-billionaires-62-percent-richer-during-pandemic\/ https:\/\/inequality.org\/great-divide\/updates-billionaire-pandemic\/","human_ref_B":">Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. Do you agree that policy can have pretty profound impacts on quality of life? >Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. Okay. To be clear, I am **not** going to be defending the position that these problems are easily fixable. >We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** Can you clarify how increasing wages would be bad for people striking for increased wages? >I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested. It seems like you are upset that people are upset that things are getting rough. A lot of the cause for why things are getting rough is not blameless natural currents of god's will or something, it is the result of real people acting, and some of those people are acting greedily and maliciously.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6830.0,"score_ratio":1.3} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihv8nbp","c_root_id_B":"ihvh0qy","created_at_utc_A":1658937972,"created_at_utc_B":1658941090,"score_A":3,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"One thing I\u2019d like to acknowledge from your post is that there aren\u2019t easy solutions to these problems. Technically, that\u2019s wrong. If inflation is high, decrease it. If minimum wage is low, increase it. If politics or the environment are sporadic, mediate them. Done. The problem is that people want different issues taken as a priority. While there IS some commonality, all of these problems require LARGE allocations. Money isn\u2019t the problem, though. Once you fix one of these so called \u2018problems\u2019, you start a cascade. Which brings me to my last point. Your view shouldn\u2019t be these problems don\u2019t have easy solutions. Your view should be: these problems don\u2019t exist in isolation. It\u2019s like try to do heart surgery without breaking the skin. And everybody is watching to see who breaks the skin first.","human_ref_B":"If these truly were \"hard times\", then it would be difficult for everyone. Instead, the average person struggles more while the wealthiest people are making *even more money*. A crisis for the average citizen is not a crisis for everyone - it's an opportunity to increase profits or consolidate power. Your example of the simple solution not actually being simple is missing what's really going on. Why is it that when a good has a shortage, the consumer suffers while the supplier maintains, or even *increases* profits? Why do people have to risk their livelihoods (striking, unionizing) in order to be paid a fair wage - when wages stay them same while a company's profits grow with inflation? Granted, this is coming from the perspective of a US citizen where our government throws billions, and more recently ***trillions*** of dollars at the top 1% when \"hard times\" occur. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/graphics\/2020\/business\/coronavirus-bailout-spending\/ https:\/\/ips-dc.org\/u-s-billionaires-62-percent-richer-during-pandemic\/ https:\/\/inequality.org\/great-divide\/updates-billionaire-pandemic\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3118.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihumw0p","c_root_id_B":"ihvh0qy","created_at_utc_A":1658929273,"created_at_utc_B":1658941090,"score_A":3,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I get your point however i personnaly dont accept it because most of the current problems could have been avoided with \u00e0 little more wisdom from the leaders of countries. The lockdown is \u00e0 proof of bad m\u00e9dical sector for example. Im from France man i could wrote \u00e0 book about the problems we faced that can be directly linked to the flaws of our leaders. So yes easy ways exists, its just that the burden of it all will be on different people. Look for example there was a law in France, i dont know how to call it in english.. but the idea was to freeze prices of first necessity items. This restriction has been lifted but could have come back and was rejected in parlement. We even have ceo of supermarket arguing to change laws so that he can lower prices. Yeah dont be fooled by your sense of responsibility easy ways exists. And even more.. i pay those shmucks i expect them to do a good job. I'd be fire if i told my boss \"hey you know its hard, suck it up\" without breaking \u00e0 sweat. Nah things are easy, the more you dig the more you'll see it. Its just not done. Im not too clear im in a rush, but willing to clarify if you are interested in debating.","human_ref_B":"If these truly were \"hard times\", then it would be difficult for everyone. Instead, the average person struggles more while the wealthiest people are making *even more money*. A crisis for the average citizen is not a crisis for everyone - it's an opportunity to increase profits or consolidate power. Your example of the simple solution not actually being simple is missing what's really going on. Why is it that when a good has a shortage, the consumer suffers while the supplier maintains, or even *increases* profits? Why do people have to risk their livelihoods (striking, unionizing) in order to be paid a fair wage - when wages stay them same while a company's profits grow with inflation? Granted, this is coming from the perspective of a US citizen where our government throws billions, and more recently ***trillions*** of dollars at the top 1% when \"hard times\" occur. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/graphics\/2020\/business\/coronavirus-bailout-spending\/ https:\/\/ips-dc.org\/u-s-billionaires-62-percent-richer-during-pandemic\/ https:\/\/inequality.org\/great-divide\/updates-billionaire-pandemic\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11817.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihuyzpp","c_root_id_B":"ihwg3ia","created_at_utc_A":1658934260,"created_at_utc_B":1658954220,"score_A":10,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. Do you agree that policy can have pretty profound impacts on quality of life? >Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. Okay. To be clear, I am **not** going to be defending the position that these problems are easily fixable. >We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** Can you clarify how increasing wages would be bad for people striking for increased wages? >I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested. It seems like you are upset that people are upset that things are getting rough. A lot of the cause for why things are getting rough is not blameless natural currents of god's will or something, it is the result of real people acting, and some of those people are acting greedily and maliciously.","human_ref_B":"You seem to believe these \"hard times\" are a random consequence of nature. They are not. Therefore, it's simply logical advocating for change, when the starting conditions where artificial in the first place.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19960.0,"score_ratio":1.1} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihumw0p","c_root_id_B":"ihuyzpp","created_at_utc_A":1658929273,"created_at_utc_B":1658934260,"score_A":3,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I get your point however i personnaly dont accept it because most of the current problems could have been avoided with \u00e0 little more wisdom from the leaders of countries. The lockdown is \u00e0 proof of bad m\u00e9dical sector for example. Im from France man i could wrote \u00e0 book about the problems we faced that can be directly linked to the flaws of our leaders. So yes easy ways exists, its just that the burden of it all will be on different people. Look for example there was a law in France, i dont know how to call it in english.. but the idea was to freeze prices of first necessity items. This restriction has been lifted but could have come back and was rejected in parlement. We even have ceo of supermarket arguing to change laws so that he can lower prices. Yeah dont be fooled by your sense of responsibility easy ways exists. And even more.. i pay those shmucks i expect them to do a good job. I'd be fire if i told my boss \"hey you know its hard, suck it up\" without breaking \u00e0 sweat. Nah things are easy, the more you dig the more you'll see it. Its just not done. Im not too clear im in a rush, but willing to clarify if you are interested in debating.","human_ref_B":">Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. Do you agree that policy can have pretty profound impacts on quality of life? >Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. Okay. To be clear, I am **not** going to be defending the position that these problems are easily fixable. >We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** Can you clarify how increasing wages would be bad for people striking for increased wages? >I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested. It seems like you are upset that people are upset that things are getting rough. A lot of the cause for why things are getting rough is not blameless natural currents of god's will or something, it is the result of real people acting, and some of those people are acting greedily and maliciously.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4987.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihwg3ia","c_root_id_B":"ihvkxe1","created_at_utc_A":1658954220,"created_at_utc_B":1658942561,"score_A":11,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You seem to believe these \"hard times\" are a random consequence of nature. They are not. Therefore, it's simply logical advocating for change, when the starting conditions where artificial in the first place.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m not entirely sure what you\u2019re view is, but I will pitch in as a nurse that has been working for the NHS for ten years; I am \/dying\/. I\u2019ve been \u201ctaking the hit\u201d for ten years, long before covid and Ukraine. Been fed the same lie of increased budgets and funding only to receive nothing except a job that has gotten HARDER. And what kills me is that I am not junior by any metric, I have returned to uni and retrained and been put into a specialist post and I\u2019m still struggling to keep afloat. I don\u2019t want to strike!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11659.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihv8nbp","c_root_id_B":"ihwg3ia","created_at_utc_A":1658937972,"created_at_utc_B":1658954220,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"One thing I\u2019d like to acknowledge from your post is that there aren\u2019t easy solutions to these problems. Technically, that\u2019s wrong. If inflation is high, decrease it. If minimum wage is low, increase it. If politics or the environment are sporadic, mediate them. Done. The problem is that people want different issues taken as a priority. While there IS some commonality, all of these problems require LARGE allocations. Money isn\u2019t the problem, though. Once you fix one of these so called \u2018problems\u2019, you start a cascade. Which brings me to my last point. Your view shouldn\u2019t be these problems don\u2019t have easy solutions. Your view should be: these problems don\u2019t exist in isolation. It\u2019s like try to do heart surgery without breaking the skin. And everybody is watching to see who breaks the skin first.","human_ref_B":"You seem to believe these \"hard times\" are a random consequence of nature. They are not. Therefore, it's simply logical advocating for change, when the starting conditions where artificial in the first place.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16248.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihwg3ia","c_root_id_B":"ihumw0p","created_at_utc_A":1658954220,"created_at_utc_B":1658929273,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You seem to believe these \"hard times\" are a random consequence of nature. They are not. Therefore, it's simply logical advocating for change, when the starting conditions where artificial in the first place.","human_ref_B":"I get your point however i personnaly dont accept it because most of the current problems could have been avoided with \u00e0 little more wisdom from the leaders of countries. The lockdown is \u00e0 proof of bad m\u00e9dical sector for example. Im from France man i could wrote \u00e0 book about the problems we faced that can be directly linked to the flaws of our leaders. So yes easy ways exists, its just that the burden of it all will be on different people. Look for example there was a law in France, i dont know how to call it in english.. but the idea was to freeze prices of first necessity items. This restriction has been lifted but could have come back and was rejected in parlement. We even have ceo of supermarket arguing to change laws so that he can lower prices. Yeah dont be fooled by your sense of responsibility easy ways exists. And even more.. i pay those shmucks i expect them to do a good job. I'd be fire if i told my boss \"hey you know its hard, suck it up\" without breaking \u00e0 sweat. Nah things are easy, the more you dig the more you'll see it. Its just not done. Im not too clear im in a rush, but willing to clarify if you are interested in debating.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24947.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihvtim9","c_root_id_B":"ihwg3ia","created_at_utc_A":1658945775,"created_at_utc_B":1658954220,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Clarifying question: do you consider dependence on fossil fuels to be an example of this? For example, if someone is a \"hard worker\" but relies on transporting a bunch of things in a car\/truck to make ends meet, would you categorize this person as a person who is taking things for granted, or a person to be modeled by those who are less of \"hard workers\"?","human_ref_B":"You seem to believe these \"hard times\" are a random consequence of nature. They are not. Therefore, it's simply logical advocating for change, when the starting conditions where artificial in the first place.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8445.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihvkxe1","c_root_id_B":"ihv8nbp","created_at_utc_A":1658942561,"created_at_utc_B":1658937972,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m not entirely sure what you\u2019re view is, but I will pitch in as a nurse that has been working for the NHS for ten years; I am \/dying\/. I\u2019ve been \u201ctaking the hit\u201d for ten years, long before covid and Ukraine. Been fed the same lie of increased budgets and funding only to receive nothing except a job that has gotten HARDER. And what kills me is that I am not junior by any metric, I have returned to uni and retrained and been put into a specialist post and I\u2019m still struggling to keep afloat. I don\u2019t want to strike!","human_ref_B":"One thing I\u2019d like to acknowledge from your post is that there aren\u2019t easy solutions to these problems. Technically, that\u2019s wrong. If inflation is high, decrease it. If minimum wage is low, increase it. If politics or the environment are sporadic, mediate them. Done. The problem is that people want different issues taken as a priority. While there IS some commonality, all of these problems require LARGE allocations. Money isn\u2019t the problem, though. Once you fix one of these so called \u2018problems\u2019, you start a cascade. Which brings me to my last point. Your view shouldn\u2019t be these problems don\u2019t have easy solutions. Your view should be: these problems don\u2019t exist in isolation. It\u2019s like try to do heart surgery without breaking the skin. And everybody is watching to see who breaks the skin first.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4589.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihumw0p","c_root_id_B":"ihvkxe1","created_at_utc_A":1658929273,"created_at_utc_B":1658942561,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I get your point however i personnaly dont accept it because most of the current problems could have been avoided with \u00e0 little more wisdom from the leaders of countries. The lockdown is \u00e0 proof of bad m\u00e9dical sector for example. Im from France man i could wrote \u00e0 book about the problems we faced that can be directly linked to the flaws of our leaders. So yes easy ways exists, its just that the burden of it all will be on different people. Look for example there was a law in France, i dont know how to call it in english.. but the idea was to freeze prices of first necessity items. This restriction has been lifted but could have come back and was rejected in parlement. We even have ceo of supermarket arguing to change laws so that he can lower prices. Yeah dont be fooled by your sense of responsibility easy ways exists. And even more.. i pay those shmucks i expect them to do a good job. I'd be fire if i told my boss \"hey you know its hard, suck it up\" without breaking \u00e0 sweat. Nah things are easy, the more you dig the more you'll see it. Its just not done. Im not too clear im in a rush, but willing to clarify if you are interested in debating.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m not entirely sure what you\u2019re view is, but I will pitch in as a nurse that has been working for the NHS for ten years; I am \/dying\/. I\u2019ve been \u201ctaking the hit\u201d for ten years, long before covid and Ukraine. Been fed the same lie of increased budgets and funding only to receive nothing except a job that has gotten HARDER. And what kills me is that I am not junior by any metric, I have returned to uni and retrained and been put into a specialist post and I\u2019m still struggling to keep afloat. I don\u2019t want to strike!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13288.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihxckca","c_root_id_B":"ihwpr6o","created_at_utc_A":1658967475,"created_at_utc_B":1658957912,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I just want to correct you that the economics of inflation caused by wage increases isn\u2019t complicated. Wages rise and then corporations raise prices because they can. That\u2019s it. There\u2019s no greater following the winding path of capitalism. Corporations raise prices because basically most corporations ally together to create de facto monopolies. That\u2019s it.","human_ref_B":"What did they warn us about wage increases? Inflation. It's happening anyways. What could go wrong simply getting pay raises for the lowest earning working class? The other problems of the world really put into perspective how much hot air it all it all is inventing potential problems to increases in the lowest wage earnings in society. For the total economy there may be a long term strange unpredictable NOT simple effect. In the short terms increases in minimum wage would absolutely benefit people earning minimum wage. In general I agree with you but I had to stop and clench when I read about wage increases. There are 2 kinds of people. People who want simple solutions to complex problems because they don't understand and people who want the simplest solution that will help them out in the here and now. Those are two very different kinds of people. The people who want minimum wage increases aren't people who don't know what hard times are. They are the people who are experiencing hard times, at least harder times than most. So it's kinda not wrong to expect those people to want the simplest solution that helps them now in the present. Such a solution may gave complex implications but it is a valid solution if it can provide short term relief to short terms problems or just straighg relief if but for a short term before the economy \"catches up.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9563.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihwpr6o","c_root_id_B":"ihykwbm","created_at_utc_A":1658957912,"created_at_utc_B":1658990777,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What did they warn us about wage increases? Inflation. It's happening anyways. What could go wrong simply getting pay raises for the lowest earning working class? The other problems of the world really put into perspective how much hot air it all it all is inventing potential problems to increases in the lowest wage earnings in society. For the total economy there may be a long term strange unpredictable NOT simple effect. In the short terms increases in minimum wage would absolutely benefit people earning minimum wage. In general I agree with you but I had to stop and clench when I read about wage increases. There are 2 kinds of people. People who want simple solutions to complex problems because they don't understand and people who want the simplest solution that will help them out in the here and now. Those are two very different kinds of people. The people who want minimum wage increases aren't people who don't know what hard times are. They are the people who are experiencing hard times, at least harder times than most. So it's kinda not wrong to expect those people to want the simplest solution that helps them now in the present. Such a solution may gave complex implications but it is a valid solution if it can provide short term relief to short terms problems or just straighg relief if but for a short term before the economy \"catches up.\"","human_ref_B":"I think, especially in the UK, you have this almost exactly backwards. My view of the country is that we have a learned apathy - after a decade under a government ideologically opposed to fulfilling even the basic functions of a state, as a country we no longer expect things to work. We have been resigned to hard times for the last decade. Rent and bills going up, wages staying the same, public services getting worse. For a *decade*. For many there was no post 2008 recovery. What we are witnessing now isn't people deciding that solutions are easy - people are *finally* expecting the bare minimum of competence from our government, and it's so out of the ordinary that it almost looks unreasonable to ask. Energy bills going up to 3k at the start of this winter is *absolutely insane*. The government has trained everyone into thinking that it's an intractable, complicated problem because they are *ideologically opposed to competent governing* but it's really not. France nationalised their energy when gas prices went up to shield people from the effects of it. We *chose* hard times. Or rather, our government has chosen hard times, and \"it's too complicated\" is merely an excuse to allow those hard times to fall on the people who already have the least.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32865.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihyz3nk","c_root_id_B":"ihwpr6o","created_at_utc_A":1659002005,"created_at_utc_B":1658957912,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Just out of curiosity, how on earth would you define hard times such that some of this population isn't used to it? Because I'm only 31, and yet I've experienced the rise of modern terrorism and subsequent clampdown on freedom, two once-in-a-lifetime economic crises (soon to be 3), a once-in-a-century pandemic, the most divisive politics we've had arguably ever, the rise of mass misinformation campaigns, and we're staring down the barrel of a climate crisis that is going to kill many many millions of people already and my generation is having to fight the generations that will never face the consequences to try and determine how many zeroes the death toll will have. What part of the past decade or two makes you consider it to be \"easy times\"?","human_ref_B":"What did they warn us about wage increases? Inflation. It's happening anyways. What could go wrong simply getting pay raises for the lowest earning working class? The other problems of the world really put into perspective how much hot air it all it all is inventing potential problems to increases in the lowest wage earnings in society. For the total economy there may be a long term strange unpredictable NOT simple effect. In the short terms increases in minimum wage would absolutely benefit people earning minimum wage. In general I agree with you but I had to stop and clench when I read about wage increases. There are 2 kinds of people. People who want simple solutions to complex problems because they don't understand and people who want the simplest solution that will help them out in the here and now. Those are two very different kinds of people. The people who want minimum wage increases aren't people who don't know what hard times are. They are the people who are experiencing hard times, at least harder times than most. So it's kinda not wrong to expect those people to want the simplest solution that helps them now in the present. Such a solution may gave complex implications but it is a valid solution if it can provide short term relief to short terms problems or just straighg relief if but for a short term before the economy \"catches up.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":44093.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"w9ekr7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: There is a significant chunk of the population that isn't used to hard times and want easy solutions to difficult problems This is a half formed view that I have that I'm interested in hearing the opposite side for. I will preface this and say I'm from the UK - so most of my commetray will be about my country, but it might apply more broadly to the views I see on reddit. Essentially my view is that we are going through some really rough times, but the reaction to these rough times, from the type of people I read and interact with, stems from the belief that the default is \"good times\" and we could easily go back to these times if only businesses and government took the correct action. The past few years have been rough on everyone - we've had a pandemic, the first major one in a long, long time. The response to the pandemic has been stressful in a multitude of directions (economic, social, mental) - both down to disease itself, and the policies implemented to counteract it. We've now had our first major war in Europe in an equally long amount of time which has further destabilised the already shaky economy. While some economies are strong with low unemployment (US) there is high inflation which is affecting the poorest and in a lot of European countries, could cause a recession. It is not to say all countries are equally poor at responding, or are affected the same. The UK and US have both had higher inflation in part due to the stimulus during the various lockdowns, and due to Brexit in the UK. But even still, all countries are being hit hard - Germany is about to raked over the coals due to the Russian's cutting off energy supplies to them. Finally, what my view is about, is that I've seen an attitude to these circumstances that is essentially that these problems are easily fixable. We are having multiple public sector strikes (which to be fair to them are probably long due, especially in the NHS) as the cost of living is increasing. The government is obviously not wanting to grant these, as it could increase inflationary pressure. **But the people I see seem to think that this is just obviously the correct thing to do.** It might be correct, but it isn't obvious and I doubt either myself or they have any actual data about the complicated economics of such a move. People want the increase in wages for TFL staff, but don't acknowledge that the TFL is beyond fucked, due to an increase in WFH and the lockdowns. There would undoubtedly be consequences to increasing wages, which will most likely hit the poorest anyway. **There aren't easy solutions to these problems.** To be clear, I'm not placing the blame on the people asking for a wage increase. Even if it is the wrong choice in the current state of affairs (I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion on this), I still think it is understandable for individuals to want a pay increase, and advocating for that is fine, even if it ultimately isn't granted. It is obviously to the credit of people who are worried about the most vulnerable in our society, but I wish there was some acknowledgement that some harm will have to be suffered when the geopolitical and economic situation is as it is. Food prices aren't going to be fixed without an increase in the supply of grain and fuel. This might take months or years to fix. **I've come round to think that hard times are the default** - the past 30-40 years have been largely smooth for most people, with increases in living standards. 2008 was the first sign of some decline, but it didn't have the same sense of doom that is now being spread. Even with the energy crisis we are having now, we aren't having rolling blackouts like we did in the 70's (not that I lived through them). I have no idea if people were the same then, but regardless, **it feels like people have taken for granted the comfort of modern day life**. No one wants to take the hit. I get it. But people scream for solutions without reflecting that this is the human condition, we are struggling to support everyone with limited resources and these aren't hard times, this is the default, we were in the good times. People are going to suffer, and we can do our best to mitigate us, but it won't pass smoothly. I don't think I've been exceedingly clear on what my view is, but if anyone is able to parse it and has an alternative view I would be interested.","c_root_id_A":"ihyqjz3","c_root_id_B":"ihyz3nk","created_at_utc_A":1658995128,"created_at_utc_B":1659002005,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't even want to read the whole paragraph after reading the title! Just want to say, **So? What? Isn't used to hard times, so what? If you can get easy solutions, get it, if you can't and have money to outsource it, do it.** What is with this crap of \"mandatory hardships\" of some sort!? Like your Grand-Dad used to pull Canons with 2 of his buddies, and your Dad used to Farm his land for food! Asking any of them to do what their previous generation is just complete insane! **Isn't that called Progress??**","human_ref_B":"Just out of curiosity, how on earth would you define hard times such that some of this population isn't used to it? Because I'm only 31, and yet I've experienced the rise of modern terrorism and subsequent clampdown on freedom, two once-in-a-lifetime economic crises (soon to be 3), a once-in-a-century pandemic, the most divisive politics we've had arguably ever, the rise of mass misinformation campaigns, and we're staring down the barrel of a climate crisis that is going to kill many many millions of people already and my generation is having to fight the generations that will never face the consequences to try and determine how many zeroes the death toll will have. What part of the past decade or two makes you consider it to be \"easy times\"?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6877.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"6vur36","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Most of the fatshaming that physicians are said do isn't actually fatshaming - it's caring about people's heath. I do believe that some physicians fatshame patients. I shadowed a doctor once who didn't spend as much time with overweight or obese patients and didn't explain as much to them either. He believed that overweight \/ obese people were stupid bc in his mind, no one would let themselves gain so much weight unless they had no consideration for their health. He didn't think he should put as much effort helping those who wouldn't help themselves. This is definitely fatshaming. However, what isn't fatshaming is telling people that losing weight will improve their symptoms and reduce their risk of future health problems. I've read a lot of articles saying that physicians shouldn't tell patients to lose weight because it's triggering. As a future physician, I feel like I'd be doing the wrong thing by refraining from telling my patients that losing weight would improve their health or health outcomes. I want to give them all their options for improving their health. I understand if there was a better way I needed to phrase \"you need to lose weight.\" However, it seems like most people would prefer it if I never mentioned weight at all. I would love any and all opinions, as this will impact how I practice medicine in the future! _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dm36oik","c_root_id_B":"dm372ru","created_at_utc_A":1503620313,"created_at_utc_B":1503620844,"score_A":43,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"I think the best argument against fat shaming is that it is impolite but rather that it is ineffective. Obviously being overweight is associated with negative health outcomes. And if a medical professional is asked, that should be upfront with that. The problem is that most people already know that. And the problem isn't in ignorance of the problem or a result of inadequate guilt - but a problem of finding a path to a healthy life style. Guilt and shame can work as motivators for some people. But they are not the best tools. It can be pretty destructive to be told that you re fat again and again - and a response to anxiety is eating and depression. A better way to engage people if to kindle a sustainable interest in healthy living. That's a positive outlook. It's not put down the fork, numb nuts; it's eat socially, take a cooking class and prepare your own food, keep a personal budget to keep track of how often you eat, try to take a walk before bed, sign on with a person trainer, etc. The path to a healthier life is in offering ways to improve habits that can run on the joy of the change than simply the shame of the alternative.","human_ref_B":"My friend went to a doctor and complained about neck pain. He said that she is just fat and needs to lose some weigh. It turned out later that she had Hodgkin's lymphoma.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":531.0,"score_ratio":2.0697674419} {"post_id":"6vur36","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Most of the fatshaming that physicians are said do isn't actually fatshaming - it's caring about people's heath. I do believe that some physicians fatshame patients. I shadowed a doctor once who didn't spend as much time with overweight or obese patients and didn't explain as much to them either. He believed that overweight \/ obese people were stupid bc in his mind, no one would let themselves gain so much weight unless they had no consideration for their health. He didn't think he should put as much effort helping those who wouldn't help themselves. This is definitely fatshaming. However, what isn't fatshaming is telling people that losing weight will improve their symptoms and reduce their risk of future health problems. I've read a lot of articles saying that physicians shouldn't tell patients to lose weight because it's triggering. As a future physician, I feel like I'd be doing the wrong thing by refraining from telling my patients that losing weight would improve their health or health outcomes. I want to give them all their options for improving their health. I understand if there was a better way I needed to phrase \"you need to lose weight.\" However, it seems like most people would prefer it if I never mentioned weight at all. I would love any and all opinions, as this will impact how I practice medicine in the future! _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dm36z2r","c_root_id_B":"dm372ru","created_at_utc_A":1503620709,"created_at_utc_B":1503620844,"score_A":35,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"I am an overweight person who has struggled with weight loss. So, I think it is fair that when a doctor tells me that I should drop some weight, I can say that I appreciate it. Would I be offended if (s)he was rude about it? Yep, and I would probably find a new doctor too. However, when it is done in a respectful, albeit blunt manner, it is important. I don't need to be told what I am, I can see that for myself. However, it helps encourage me knowing that someone is looking out for me. You are going to be a doctor, which means your job is to help people. Sometimes, that means helping them get over a nasty infection. Sometimes, that means helping to heal their bones. Sometimes, that means helping them from themselves. Be kind, but be truthful about it. Just because it isn't sugar coated, it doesn't mean it is shaming. Your body language and tone of voice will do wonders to help get your message across. People don't always want to hear something, and some will never want to admit or realize the problems with their health. They still need to hear it though. If they are kept in an echo chamber and are never confronted with it, they can never get better.","human_ref_B":"My friend went to a doctor and complained about neck pain. He said that she is just fat and needs to lose some weigh. It turned out later that she had Hodgkin's lymphoma.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":135.0,"score_ratio":2.5428571429} {"post_id":"6vur36","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Most of the fatshaming that physicians are said do isn't actually fatshaming - it's caring about people's heath. I do believe that some physicians fatshame patients. I shadowed a doctor once who didn't spend as much time with overweight or obese patients and didn't explain as much to them either. He believed that overweight \/ obese people were stupid bc in his mind, no one would let themselves gain so much weight unless they had no consideration for their health. He didn't think he should put as much effort helping those who wouldn't help themselves. This is definitely fatshaming. However, what isn't fatshaming is telling people that losing weight will improve their symptoms and reduce their risk of future health problems. I've read a lot of articles saying that physicians shouldn't tell patients to lose weight because it's triggering. As a future physician, I feel like I'd be doing the wrong thing by refraining from telling my patients that losing weight would improve their health or health outcomes. I want to give them all their options for improving their health. I understand if there was a better way I needed to phrase \"you need to lose weight.\" However, it seems like most people would prefer it if I never mentioned weight at all. I would love any and all opinions, as this will impact how I practice medicine in the future! _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dm3s35p","c_root_id_B":"dm3mz69","created_at_utc_A":1503661218,"created_at_utc_B":1503648025,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"In my opinion the main problem with doctors focusing on recommending weight loss as a solution is that they don't give the patient any other treatment options in the meantime, or they focus on the extra weight as the sole source of all other health problems. I would say it's not bad to say that being overweight is a health concern and that the patient should attempt to lose weight. However, it's important to also offer other options that the patient can use to relieve symptoms while they are working on their weight loss. I lost 50 lbs since 2015. I did not lose it overnight. It took me most of a year to lose that much. If I'd gone to a doctor with any health concerns at the time, I would want to be treated for my problems with more than just advice to lose weight. Also, it's important not to focus on the patient's weight level as the sole source of their health issues. I've heard far too many stories where and overweight patient's weight is blamed for their symptoms and it's later found that they had a serious, life-threatening condition that could have been caught if the doctor had treated them or run a few tests. I guess I would say to treat the weight loss as a separate problem and address the symptoms on their own. Fat people can still have any disorder or problem that skinny people can, even to eating disorders or malnourishment. So yes, fatshaming exists in medicine, but more importantly doctors have a tendency to blame all health issues on fat if the patient is overweight.","human_ref_B":"> However, what isn't fatshaming is telling people that losing weight will improve their symptoms and reduce their risk of future health problems. If that were all, I don't think people would care so much. I've had doctors tell me that losing weight (or doing some other similar self-care thing) would help with some of my symptoms, and it turned out that they were right. OK. But people's negative experiences with that sort of thing can't be discounted. I've certainly been victim of careless doctoring on occasion (thankfully not often), where the doctor is just trying to get done as quickly as possible and will tell me whatever just to get out and see the next patient. At that point, \"this problem is because of your weight\" becomes an excuse, not a reason, and it basically means \"I don't care enough to figure out why you're having this issue so let's just blame it on whatever's most visible\". What I vehemently disagree with is calling this \"fat shaming\". \"You need to take better care of yourself\" is one of those things that's extremely annoying to hear, but the doctor *does* have to tell it to you if you're having problems in that regard, whether it's about weight or anything else. A doctor that uses this as an excuse isn't *shaming* you so much as just being a shitty doctor. Instead, this use of the term obscures the *real* cases of fat shaming that occur in real life, where this kind of stuff does, in fact, happen (see, for example, this very subreddit). Fat shaming is a real problem, and careless medicine is a separate real problem that shouldn't go under the same umbrella.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13193.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"y1bvuf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"cmv: AITA is a terrible place filled with horrible people So the concept is amazing and I love it, in theory it should be a fine subreddit but in practice I find the commenters there despicable. Most of the time I find that I'm reading the comments of an AITA post and out of nowhere someone makes the most outlandish claim with 0 evidence, for example if there was a post saying \"AITA for getting into an argument with my wife about x\" and they clearly were the asshole in the situation, I garuntee looking into the comments you would find the most wild shit with zero evidence, such as \"oh yeah and I bet you beat your wife too don't you\". These comments wouldn't mean too much if it were just a few but on most every post you find a similar situation, all getting sometimes hundreds of upvotes! What the fuck?? How do you go from an argument to domestic abuse with no backing and get that much support from people?","c_root_id_A":"irwfox1","c_root_id_B":"irwh59n","created_at_utc_A":1665502431,"created_at_utc_B":1665503015,"score_A":11,"score_B":137,"human_ref_A":"Isn't the entire subreddit based on projecting your own feelings onto someone else's story? You cannot include the complexities of reality into a Reddit post. Relationships, social norms, etc are too complex. So what does Reddit do? It projects its own rules onto the story. Have you ever projected your own assumptions onto a story or do you admit you don't have enough information to judge? This is very common in this subreddit where people regularly soapbox their illogical and unfounded opinions just so someone will engage with them. It's very sad but so are most people who spend time online (you and me included).","human_ref_B":"I mean, I wouldn't say it's filled with horrible people. On most posts, aren't the most-upvoted comments the ones who don't do what you describe? Like, I know that the extreme stuff can sometimes get hundreds of upvotes, but this is on a sub where popular comments regularly get thousands, sometimes tens of thousands. Can you really say that most people on that sub are horrible if the horrible stuff is still relatively unpopular?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":584.0,"score_ratio":12.4545454545} {"post_id":"y1bvuf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"cmv: AITA is a terrible place filled with horrible people So the concept is amazing and I love it, in theory it should be a fine subreddit but in practice I find the commenters there despicable. Most of the time I find that I'm reading the comments of an AITA post and out of nowhere someone makes the most outlandish claim with 0 evidence, for example if there was a post saying \"AITA for getting into an argument with my wife about x\" and they clearly were the asshole in the situation, I garuntee looking into the comments you would find the most wild shit with zero evidence, such as \"oh yeah and I bet you beat your wife too don't you\". These comments wouldn't mean too much if it were just a few but on most every post you find a similar situation, all getting sometimes hundreds of upvotes! What the fuck?? How do you go from an argument to domestic abuse with no backing and get that much support from people?","c_root_id_A":"irwlq0r","c_root_id_B":"irwfox1","created_at_utc_A":1665504844,"created_at_utc_B":1665502431,"score_A":107,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"AITA is mostly a creative writing sub. Just think of it like reality TV or pro-wrestling; you know it's scripted, but pretending it's real makes it more entertaining. And the comments are just people playing along. Some people run with the staging, call the face the face and the heel the heel, but others like to stir the pot. \"Grab his dick and twist it!\"","human_ref_B":"Isn't the entire subreddit based on projecting your own feelings onto someone else's story? You cannot include the complexities of reality into a Reddit post. Relationships, social norms, etc are too complex. So what does Reddit do? It projects its own rules onto the story. Have you ever projected your own assumptions onto a story or do you admit you don't have enough information to judge? This is very common in this subreddit where people regularly soapbox their illogical and unfounded opinions just so someone will engage with them. It's very sad but so are most people who spend time online (you and me included).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2413.0,"score_ratio":9.7272727273} {"post_id":"y1bvuf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"cmv: AITA is a terrible place filled with horrible people So the concept is amazing and I love it, in theory it should be a fine subreddit but in practice I find the commenters there despicable. Most of the time I find that I'm reading the comments of an AITA post and out of nowhere someone makes the most outlandish claim with 0 evidence, for example if there was a post saying \"AITA for getting into an argument with my wife about x\" and they clearly were the asshole in the situation, I garuntee looking into the comments you would find the most wild shit with zero evidence, such as \"oh yeah and I bet you beat your wife too don't you\". These comments wouldn't mean too much if it were just a few but on most every post you find a similar situation, all getting sometimes hundreds of upvotes! What the fuck?? How do you go from an argument to domestic abuse with no backing and get that much support from people?","c_root_id_A":"irx02rh","c_root_id_B":"irwn336","created_at_utc_A":1665510411,"created_at_utc_B":1665505386,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Yea! I saw one yesterday where a dad didn\u2019t want his young teenage daughter to go out in just a sports bra and people were calling him a child predator and accusing him of wanting to rape his daughter and stuff. I was like WHAT in what world does an over protective father suddenly become a child rapist.","human_ref_B":"AITA isn't filled with assholes, it's a place that brings out the worst in normal people (like many digital gathering spaces). Pretty much all people make shitty judgements about others based on little to no evidence. We just usually keep that to ourselves (and\/or our partners\/good friends) and change our minds later once we get to know the person we judged. AITA creates an environment where people can be rewarded for \"saying what we all think,\" aka (1) correctly guessing the majority's initial judgements or (2) tapping into the pettiness that occurs in traditional convos with friends or partners. This becomes shitty because, obviously, it's public and the person they are talking about is right there. It's just a social outlet for being petty in the same way all of social media is a social outlet for some vice or virtue humans have. A related subreddit to AITA are subs that are much more kind and wholesome (related meaning large active user overlap). CongratsLikeImFive and HumansBeingBros being two fun ones. These subs give a social outlet for being kind and sharing kind things. This leads me to believe that these people are just compartmentalizing the good and bad parts of themselves into different subs. So I'd argue that the people aren't bad, it's the enshrinement of initial judgements usually shared privately as \"hard truths\" about individuals, and this doesn't necessarily reflect on what a person thinks or feels about people in everyday life. Side note: the argument that people *act* assholish seems more like a fact than an opinion, but I think that assholishness is tampered by the popularity of the sub. When people post on AITA, they *know* the risk. It's like asking for advice on twitter.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5025.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"y1bvuf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"cmv: AITA is a terrible place filled with horrible people So the concept is amazing and I love it, in theory it should be a fine subreddit but in practice I find the commenters there despicable. Most of the time I find that I'm reading the comments of an AITA post and out of nowhere someone makes the most outlandish claim with 0 evidence, for example if there was a post saying \"AITA for getting into an argument with my wife about x\" and they clearly were the asshole in the situation, I garuntee looking into the comments you would find the most wild shit with zero evidence, such as \"oh yeah and I bet you beat your wife too don't you\". These comments wouldn't mean too much if it were just a few but on most every post you find a similar situation, all getting sometimes hundreds of upvotes! What the fuck?? How do you go from an argument to domestic abuse with no backing and get that much support from people?","c_root_id_A":"irxwfza","c_root_id_B":"irwn336","created_at_utc_A":1665522841,"created_at_utc_B":1665505386,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Join us at r\/amitheangel","human_ref_B":"AITA isn't filled with assholes, it's a place that brings out the worst in normal people (like many digital gathering spaces). Pretty much all people make shitty judgements about others based on little to no evidence. We just usually keep that to ourselves (and\/or our partners\/good friends) and change our minds later once we get to know the person we judged. AITA creates an environment where people can be rewarded for \"saying what we all think,\" aka (1) correctly guessing the majority's initial judgements or (2) tapping into the pettiness that occurs in traditional convos with friends or partners. This becomes shitty because, obviously, it's public and the person they are talking about is right there. It's just a social outlet for being petty in the same way all of social media is a social outlet for some vice or virtue humans have. A related subreddit to AITA are subs that are much more kind and wholesome (related meaning large active user overlap). CongratsLikeImFive and HumansBeingBros being two fun ones. These subs give a social outlet for being kind and sharing kind things. This leads me to believe that these people are just compartmentalizing the good and bad parts of themselves into different subs. So I'd argue that the people aren't bad, it's the enshrinement of initial judgements usually shared privately as \"hard truths\" about individuals, and this doesn't necessarily reflect on what a person thinks or feels about people in everyday life. Side note: the argument that people *act* assholish seems more like a fact than an opinion, but I think that assholishness is tampered by the popularity of the sub. When people post on AITA, they *know* the risk. It's like asking for advice on twitter.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17455.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"y1bvuf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"cmv: AITA is a terrible place filled with horrible people So the concept is amazing and I love it, in theory it should be a fine subreddit but in practice I find the commenters there despicable. Most of the time I find that I'm reading the comments of an AITA post and out of nowhere someone makes the most outlandish claim with 0 evidence, for example if there was a post saying \"AITA for getting into an argument with my wife about x\" and they clearly were the asshole in the situation, I garuntee looking into the comments you would find the most wild shit with zero evidence, such as \"oh yeah and I bet you beat your wife too don't you\". These comments wouldn't mean too much if it were just a few but on most every post you find a similar situation, all getting sometimes hundreds of upvotes! What the fuck?? How do you go from an argument to domestic abuse with no backing and get that much support from people?","c_root_id_A":"irxwfza","c_root_id_B":"irxpduz","created_at_utc_A":1665522841,"created_at_utc_B":1665520080,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Join us at r\/amitheangel","human_ref_B":"Info: were YTA?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2761.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"tijff6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Being a mentally healthy, well-adjusted, socially skilled, confident and generally happy person is not the norm This is mostly anecdotal, I get that. For context I live in one of the best areas in a country that was statistically the happiest country in the world for a number of years recently. People generally do very well. So I can't even imagine how much worse it must be elsewhere. I don't really think it's specific to my country. In my privileged life, I rarely meet a person who does not have major life issues. Either with mental health, interpersonal relationships, self-worth, not adjusting well to society or finding something they are truly happy about and care about. Yet, I feel like it's constantly portrayed everywhere like happiness, good mental health, amazing social skills etc. are what makes up the majority of people's mentalities, with issues being the outlier, or only happening once in a blue moon but then you overcome them and return to the \"normal\" state of being jolly and happy. But I just don't see it. It may be a fine ideal to have, but I don't think it's the norm for people to be like that, I think it's a minority.","c_root_id_A":"i1eii0h","c_root_id_B":"i1e84gf","created_at_utc_A":1647784189,"created_at_utc_B":1647778198,"score_A":65,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I feel like what you are describing is the hedonic treadmill. https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hedonic_treadmill Perhaps this is a slight variation on that idea, but basically it\u2019s human nature to always find another problem or another thing that needs fixing to be unsatisfied about. The high priority problems that occupy most of people\u2019s attention in privileged countries are things like minor (non-debilitating) mental health problems, lack of confidence, or social skills. By contrast the high priority problems that occupy most of people\u2019s attention in less privileged countries are more essential things like violence, lack of basic services, treatable medical conditions or even food and water. The unifying thread is that everyone has problems and privilege just shifts the problems you spend your time on to more abstract things that aren\u2019t absolutely essential. Of course this doesn\u2019t refute your view, but maybe gives you a different way of looking at it. Someone who was confident, socially skilled, materially prosperous and in generally good mental health would still come up with problems to have and worry about, they would just be increasingly less essential things (that nonetheless seem very important and troublesome to that person). It\u2019s just human nature.","human_ref_B":"What makes you think that there is an expectation that all this is the norm? I'm struggling to think of many representations of 'the real world' in which everyone inhabits a state perpetual happiness and wellbeing. Maybe homeware advertisements? Even Gilmore Girls featured some conflict and hardship, and that was pretty extreme escapism.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5991.0,"score_ratio":9.2857142857} {"post_id":"tijff6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Being a mentally healthy, well-adjusted, socially skilled, confident and generally happy person is not the norm This is mostly anecdotal, I get that. For context I live in one of the best areas in a country that was statistically the happiest country in the world for a number of years recently. People generally do very well. So I can't even imagine how much worse it must be elsewhere. I don't really think it's specific to my country. In my privileged life, I rarely meet a person who does not have major life issues. Either with mental health, interpersonal relationships, self-worth, not adjusting well to society or finding something they are truly happy about and care about. Yet, I feel like it's constantly portrayed everywhere like happiness, good mental health, amazing social skills etc. are what makes up the majority of people's mentalities, with issues being the outlier, or only happening once in a blue moon but then you overcome them and return to the \"normal\" state of being jolly and happy. But I just don't see it. It may be a fine ideal to have, but I don't think it's the norm for people to be like that, I think it's a minority.","c_root_id_A":"i1e84gf","c_root_id_B":"i1esbow","created_at_utc_A":1647778198,"created_at_utc_B":1647788773,"score_A":7,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"What makes you think that there is an expectation that all this is the norm? I'm struggling to think of many representations of 'the real world' in which everyone inhabits a state perpetual happiness and wellbeing. Maybe homeware advertisements? Even Gilmore Girls featured some conflict and hardship, and that was pretty extreme escapism.","human_ref_B":"The idea that people who fit your definition of being happy, well adjusted and confident don\u2019t experience adversity or life stress to the degree you are seeing i think is the issue at play here. Maybe this is due in part to portrayals on social media being overwhelmingly positive, causing a distortion. This is definitely not the case: stress, anxiety and periods of sadness are completely normal and life will unfortunately still throw curveballs. The bar for \u201cnormality\u201d is not the absence of these human emotions\/periods of stress, but the ability to bounce back or still function, without a significant impairment. This is popularly measured in frequency of the issue, the intensity that it is felt, and the duration it lasts. Maybe someone feels anxious about going to a party - does it completely paralyze them from engaging in the activity for years? Or do they still go, but they feel a bit awkward until they find someone they know? One is definitely \u201cmore normal\u201d than the other (and I use quotes because the idea of normality a bit strange). Also, I would take everything you are seeing with a grain of salt - the entire world just stared their their mortality in the face from the pandemic. It is completely within a normal range for everyone to be kind of anxious\/depressed after such a huge event. Also, it isn\u2019t really over yet so people aren\u2019t able to move on from the global stress it caused.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10575.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857} {"post_id":"86t1uf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Euthanasia should be legal in all jurisdictions to be performed on humans. Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly killing someone due to terminal illness or extreme pain. If this is allowed to be performed on animals, then why are humans any different? Since this is a messy political and ethical question, I\u2019ll try to state my side of the problem only. - When a person is suffering, either do to cancer, life threatening injuries, a vegetative state, or any other factor that reduces their quality of life to nearly nothing, I whole heartedly believe that the execution of euthanasia should be allowed legally. What joy from life does a person get if they are trapped in a hospital bed, with no chance of getting better? If they have no hope of living their life, then why should we continue to force their hearts to beat via machines? All the machines do is keep the heart beating, and drain the families bank accounts. They don\u2019t keep the brain active, they don\u2019t allow for communication. It\u2019s simply a way for a hospital to earn money from a grieving family. What is ethical about forcing someone to keep living, when they don\u2019t receive the actual benefits of life? I just don\u2019t see the moral responsibility of keeping someone alive when they receive no quality of life. I don\u2019t get why someone should be kept alive if they have no chance of getting better.","c_root_id_A":"dw7t7oa","c_root_id_B":"dw7xclz","created_at_utc_A":1521908745,"created_at_utc_B":1521913333,"score_A":10,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I've had this discussion with my wife already. She once asked me what I would want her to do in the event I end up in the hospital in a coma, fighting for my life on life support or had to undergo this risky procedure to save my life. My answer was simple. I replied with \"It depends.\" Then I continued with, no matter the situation or scenario, base your decision on the outlook of my quality of life afterwards. If there's a chance I can survive, but could or would end up braindead, a vegetable, someone that can't function on his own, or can't enjoy the little things I like doing (for example, if I had to have both my arms and legs cut off) then just pull the plug or don't waste any more money.","human_ref_B":"Not a change of view here but I wrote a research paper about this topic so I know a LOT about this particular touchy subject. Though it can be referred to as euthanasia, it's better to call it medical assistance in death(maid) or physician assisted death(pad),because euthanasia means \"mercy killing\" which makes it sound really negative. I've noticed that some of the comments mentioned how maid could be abused to potentially kill an unwilling patient or something. This really isn't a likely scenario but it's really hard to abuse it because aside from the patient's consent, there must be two physicians to confirm that the patient is terminally ill(has less than 6 months to live), is mentally capable of making the decision, and a handwritten note of consent. Also a majority of the people against this legislation base it on religious reasons and how suicide is a sin and all. Uh brb I'm gonna go reread my paper bc I seem to have forgotten some things. Will edit this once I refresh my memory :\/ Edit: Too lazy to summarize up my points so I'll just link a copy of the entire thing here. https:\/\/docs.google.com\/document\/d\/11IXn_E2_DaV3rQj3GOK0WEOJadMDQjezmkGM5BEasZg\/edit","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4588.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"y5x4bk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Government owning the 'means of production' is different from Workers owning it. I'm not intending to debate Socialism vs. Capitalism, but I notice advocates of Socialism often claim that they support the idea of \"workers\" owning various enterprises for which they work, instead of financiers. I don't necessarily disagree in some cases, but as I understand it, this describes something more along the lines of a 'Co-op' or a stock ownership plan. My understanding of Socialism is that workers don't own enterprises literally. The best someone can hope for as a worker, is that the Government acts in their interests and that some positive benefit (e.g. a profit share) accrues because of this. I suppose that in the case of natural resources sold to foreign countries, it could make sense for the Government to charge a profit. But these profits would be shared by the citizenry in general, not by workers specific to one enterprise or another. And for domestic goods and services, it doesn't seem like the Government would want to earn ANY profit. Why charge a profit margin to the collective citizenry just to turn around and give it back? Without profits being distributed to workers, and without control over how an enterprise operates (this belongs to the Government), it seems like a stretch to say that the *workers own* the means of production. In summary - I do think that Government ownership of industry, in some cases, can work out better for workers than private ownership, especially since it prevents a wealthy ownership class from diminishing the comparative purchasing power of workers. But saying that \"workers\" own these industries (means of production) seems inaccurate - especially since Government, the true owner, may become unaligned with the interests of their workers\/citizens (e.g. totalitarianism etc.) I could change my view if someone were to point out some examples where Government employees actually do participate as 'owners' in particular enterprises under Socialism, or perhaps some expanded definition of it.","c_root_id_A":"ismd0z9","c_root_id_B":"ismmyrd","created_at_utc_A":1665970321,"created_at_utc_B":1665974937,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I highly recommend the It Could Happen Here podcast episode on Tiananmen Square. They retrace the history of socialist\/communist movements and talk about an intentional move in the German empire to offer a state sponsored version rather than actually give the power to the workers. Basically meet as many demands as possible in terms of public services, only funded by the state, rather than owned by the populace.","human_ref_B":"What country are you referring to? In a democratic nation, the \"government\" are elected official by the people. The people can't make decisions all the time for every single matter, so the elect officials do things on their behalf. That's why it's important to vote because the person that will win, will make the decisions. Let's say \"government\" owns the production, rather than the \"workers\". The workers elected the government officials to act on their behalf. Just because you as a worker don't like it, doesn't make it unfair - it would just mean that you need to vote out the elected official and nominate a different one, one that aligns with your values and approach. If a company makes profit, it has two options. It can distribute the profit to the employees (i.e. bonus) which seemingly is what you want, and the other option is to invest it to let the company grow. By investing the profit in the company itself for growth, the profit margin could be higher. As most business executives running a company, their goal is to maximize profit and think of ways to make more money, and reinvesting profits into the company is the way to go.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4616.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"y5x4bk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Government owning the 'means of production' is different from Workers owning it. I'm not intending to debate Socialism vs. Capitalism, but I notice advocates of Socialism often claim that they support the idea of \"workers\" owning various enterprises for which they work, instead of financiers. I don't necessarily disagree in some cases, but as I understand it, this describes something more along the lines of a 'Co-op' or a stock ownership plan. My understanding of Socialism is that workers don't own enterprises literally. The best someone can hope for as a worker, is that the Government acts in their interests and that some positive benefit (e.g. a profit share) accrues because of this. I suppose that in the case of natural resources sold to foreign countries, it could make sense for the Government to charge a profit. But these profits would be shared by the citizenry in general, not by workers specific to one enterprise or another. And for domestic goods and services, it doesn't seem like the Government would want to earn ANY profit. Why charge a profit margin to the collective citizenry just to turn around and give it back? Without profits being distributed to workers, and without control over how an enterprise operates (this belongs to the Government), it seems like a stretch to say that the *workers own* the means of production. In summary - I do think that Government ownership of industry, in some cases, can work out better for workers than private ownership, especially since it prevents a wealthy ownership class from diminishing the comparative purchasing power of workers. But saying that \"workers\" own these industries (means of production) seems inaccurate - especially since Government, the true owner, may become unaligned with the interests of their workers\/citizens (e.g. totalitarianism etc.) I could change my view if someone were to point out some examples where Government employees actually do participate as 'owners' in particular enterprises under Socialism, or perhaps some expanded definition of it.","c_root_id_A":"isnmw0e","c_root_id_B":"isno6so","created_at_utc_A":1666000854,"created_at_utc_B":1666001943,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> I could change my views if someone were to point out some examples where Government employees actually do participate as \u2018owners\u2019 in particular enterprises under Socialism, or perhaps some expanded definition of it. I don\u2019t necessarily disagree with your distinction between the \u201cstate\u201d and *workers* themselves, so I\u2019m not going to try to convince you that your intuition is wrong about that - without safeguards to ensure a strong labor influence on the government, you can\u2019t nationalize the industry and expect it to magically work out in favor of the workers. **However**, I would like to add that there are critical variations of leftist thought that *do* focus on what you\u2019re asking about. Anarcho-syndicalism revolves around ensuring worker self-management and cooperative industrial organization in order to phase out the wage system and perceived exploitation. You could also look into decentralized planned economies, which could theoretically eliminate some of the qualms you have with classic Marxism (which are honestly pretty valid). Any derivatives of syndicalism or cooperative economies also draw heavily from socialist labor theory to some extent but try to actively address that disconnect between the system itself and the needs of its citizens. I think that a lot of the criticisms brought up by Marxist theorists are really useful in figuring out where we\u2019re currently going wrong, but the optimal \u201csolution\u201d really depends on the sociocultural expectations and economic conditions that already influence any given country. I\u2019d personally recommend not getting all too fixated on the semantics of \u201cwho owns what\u201d because trying to literally interpret stuff like the \u201cdictatorship of the proletariat\u201d is not that useful from a pragmatic perspective. Instead, check out some of the other syndicalist\/socialist schools of thought that better align with what you see in the world around you - and maybe even look into what their critics say!","human_ref_B":"At any scale larger than 20 hippies on a farm, the collective of workers is a euphemism for the government.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1089.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"y5x4bk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Government owning the 'means of production' is different from Workers owning it. I'm not intending to debate Socialism vs. Capitalism, but I notice advocates of Socialism often claim that they support the idea of \"workers\" owning various enterprises for which they work, instead of financiers. I don't necessarily disagree in some cases, but as I understand it, this describes something more along the lines of a 'Co-op' or a stock ownership plan. My understanding of Socialism is that workers don't own enterprises literally. The best someone can hope for as a worker, is that the Government acts in their interests and that some positive benefit (e.g. a profit share) accrues because of this. I suppose that in the case of natural resources sold to foreign countries, it could make sense for the Government to charge a profit. But these profits would be shared by the citizenry in general, not by workers specific to one enterprise or another. And for domestic goods and services, it doesn't seem like the Government would want to earn ANY profit. Why charge a profit margin to the collective citizenry just to turn around and give it back? Without profits being distributed to workers, and without control over how an enterprise operates (this belongs to the Government), it seems like a stretch to say that the *workers own* the means of production. In summary - I do think that Government ownership of industry, in some cases, can work out better for workers than private ownership, especially since it prevents a wealthy ownership class from diminishing the comparative purchasing power of workers. But saying that \"workers\" own these industries (means of production) seems inaccurate - especially since Government, the true owner, may become unaligned with the interests of their workers\/citizens (e.g. totalitarianism etc.) I could change my view if someone were to point out some examples where Government employees actually do participate as 'owners' in particular enterprises under Socialism, or perhaps some expanded definition of it.","c_root_id_A":"isnmw0e","c_root_id_B":"ismd0z9","created_at_utc_A":1666000854,"created_at_utc_B":1665970321,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> I could change my views if someone were to point out some examples where Government employees actually do participate as \u2018owners\u2019 in particular enterprises under Socialism, or perhaps some expanded definition of it. I don\u2019t necessarily disagree with your distinction between the \u201cstate\u201d and *workers* themselves, so I\u2019m not going to try to convince you that your intuition is wrong about that - without safeguards to ensure a strong labor influence on the government, you can\u2019t nationalize the industry and expect it to magically work out in favor of the workers. **However**, I would like to add that there are critical variations of leftist thought that *do* focus on what you\u2019re asking about. Anarcho-syndicalism revolves around ensuring worker self-management and cooperative industrial organization in order to phase out the wage system and perceived exploitation. You could also look into decentralized planned economies, which could theoretically eliminate some of the qualms you have with classic Marxism (which are honestly pretty valid). Any derivatives of syndicalism or cooperative economies also draw heavily from socialist labor theory to some extent but try to actively address that disconnect between the system itself and the needs of its citizens. I think that a lot of the criticisms brought up by Marxist theorists are really useful in figuring out where we\u2019re currently going wrong, but the optimal \u201csolution\u201d really depends on the sociocultural expectations and economic conditions that already influence any given country. I\u2019d personally recommend not getting all too fixated on the semantics of \u201cwho owns what\u201d because trying to literally interpret stuff like the \u201cdictatorship of the proletariat\u201d is not that useful from a pragmatic perspective. Instead, check out some of the other syndicalist\/socialist schools of thought that better align with what you see in the world around you - and maybe even look into what their critics say!","human_ref_B":"I highly recommend the It Could Happen Here podcast episode on Tiananmen Square. They retrace the history of socialist\/communist movements and talk about an intentional move in the German empire to offer a state sponsored version rather than actually give the power to the workers. Basically meet as many demands as possible in terms of public services, only funded by the state, rather than owned by the populace.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30533.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"y5x4bk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Government owning the 'means of production' is different from Workers owning it. I'm not intending to debate Socialism vs. Capitalism, but I notice advocates of Socialism often claim that they support the idea of \"workers\" owning various enterprises for which they work, instead of financiers. I don't necessarily disagree in some cases, but as I understand it, this describes something more along the lines of a 'Co-op' or a stock ownership plan. My understanding of Socialism is that workers don't own enterprises literally. The best someone can hope for as a worker, is that the Government acts in their interests and that some positive benefit (e.g. a profit share) accrues because of this. I suppose that in the case of natural resources sold to foreign countries, it could make sense for the Government to charge a profit. But these profits would be shared by the citizenry in general, not by workers specific to one enterprise or another. And for domestic goods and services, it doesn't seem like the Government would want to earn ANY profit. Why charge a profit margin to the collective citizenry just to turn around and give it back? Without profits being distributed to workers, and without control over how an enterprise operates (this belongs to the Government), it seems like a stretch to say that the *workers own* the means of production. In summary - I do think that Government ownership of industry, in some cases, can work out better for workers than private ownership, especially since it prevents a wealthy ownership class from diminishing the comparative purchasing power of workers. But saying that \"workers\" own these industries (means of production) seems inaccurate - especially since Government, the true owner, may become unaligned with the interests of their workers\/citizens (e.g. totalitarianism etc.) I could change my view if someone were to point out some examples where Government employees actually do participate as 'owners' in particular enterprises under Socialism, or perhaps some expanded definition of it.","c_root_id_A":"isno6so","c_root_id_B":"ismd0z9","created_at_utc_A":1666001943,"created_at_utc_B":1665970321,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"At any scale larger than 20 hippies on a farm, the collective of workers is a euphemism for the government.","human_ref_B":"I highly recommend the It Could Happen Here podcast episode on Tiananmen Square. They retrace the history of socialist\/communist movements and talk about an intentional move in the German empire to offer a state sponsored version rather than actually give the power to the workers. Basically meet as many demands as possible in terms of public services, only funded by the state, rather than owned by the populace.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31622.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteuo09","c_root_id_B":"iterpz8","created_at_utc_A":1666493206,"created_at_utc_B":1666491719,"score_A":118,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"You shouldn't take advice from any rando, man or woman, without some critical thinking. And if women are sharing what they like \/ don't like about dating, why the hell wouldn't you listen and consider their perspective? It doesn't mean you have to follow the advice to the letter. I would hope you put effort into thinking about the value of random men's advice too and not just follow blindly.","human_ref_B":"You think men shouldn't take women's direct advice not to be creepy, overbearing, annoying, and do it anyway because... >Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, ? I don't get it. The women are giving very clear info about what they want and don't. Men should ignore it because they don't understand how to act properly and should just bother as many women as possible? Is that your thesis?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1487.0,"score_ratio":2.0344827586} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itetjnv","c_root_id_B":"iteuo09","created_at_utc_A":1666492632,"created_at_utc_B":1666493206,"score_A":19,"score_B":118,"human_ref_A":"I think it's wrong to avoid feminist subs when looking for advice about dating, but I would agree that in general there are better places to get advice. You specifically linked r\/TwoXChromosomes , which in their rule 4 lists relationship advice as irrelevant and off-topic for their subreddit. I think they would agree with you to not look for relationship advice there, but occasionally browsing and remembering some woman's perspectives on dates (both good and bad) should still provide useful insight. What do you mean by dating if you're a man is mostly a numbers game? Edit: on mobile, why is some of the text bolded? lol","human_ref_B":"You shouldn't take advice from any rando, man or woman, without some critical thinking. And if women are sharing what they like \/ don't like about dating, why the hell wouldn't you listen and consider their perspective? It doesn't mean you have to follow the advice to the letter. I would hope you put effort into thinking about the value of random men's advice too and not just follow blindly.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":574.0,"score_ratio":6.2105263158} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteuo09","c_root_id_B":"iteqpp4","created_at_utc_A":1666493206,"created_at_utc_B":1666491214,"score_A":118,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You shouldn't take advice from any rando, man or woman, without some critical thinking. And if women are sharing what they like \/ don't like about dating, why the hell wouldn't you listen and consider their perspective? It doesn't mean you have to follow the advice to the letter. I would hope you put effort into thinking about the value of random men's advice too and not just follow blindly.","human_ref_B":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1992.0,"score_ratio":29.5} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqwt1","c_root_id_B":"iteuo09","created_at_utc_A":1666491313,"created_at_utc_B":1666493206,"score_A":3,"score_B":118,"human_ref_A":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","human_ref_B":"You shouldn't take advice from any rando, man or woman, without some critical thinking. And if women are sharing what they like \/ don't like about dating, why the hell wouldn't you listen and consider their perspective? It doesn't mean you have to follow the advice to the letter. I would hope you put effort into thinking about the value of random men's advice too and not just follow blindly.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1893.0,"score_ratio":39.3333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqpp4","c_root_id_B":"iterpz8","created_at_utc_A":1666491214,"created_at_utc_B":1666491719,"score_A":4,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","human_ref_B":"You think men shouldn't take women's direct advice not to be creepy, overbearing, annoying, and do it anyway because... >Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, ? I don't get it. The women are giving very clear info about what they want and don't. Men should ignore it because they don't understand how to act properly and should just bother as many women as possible? Is that your thesis?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":505.0,"score_ratio":14.5} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqwt1","c_root_id_B":"iterpz8","created_at_utc_A":1666491313,"created_at_utc_B":1666491719,"score_A":3,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","human_ref_B":"You think men shouldn't take women's direct advice not to be creepy, overbearing, annoying, and do it anyway because... >Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, ? I don't get it. The women are giving very clear info about what they want and don't. Men should ignore it because they don't understand how to act properly and should just bother as many women as possible? Is that your thesis?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":406.0,"score_ratio":19.3333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itevgzi","c_root_id_B":"itetjnv","created_at_utc_A":1666493621,"created_at_utc_B":1666492632,"score_A":51,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"You keep saying the word \"dating\" but it seems like what you are actually talking about is hitting on strangers. Is that accurate?","human_ref_B":"I think it's wrong to avoid feminist subs when looking for advice about dating, but I would agree that in general there are better places to get advice. You specifically linked r\/TwoXChromosomes , which in their rule 4 lists relationship advice as irrelevant and off-topic for their subreddit. I think they would agree with you to not look for relationship advice there, but occasionally browsing and remembering some woman's perspectives on dates (both good and bad) should still provide useful insight. What do you mean by dating if you're a man is mostly a numbers game? Edit: on mobile, why is some of the text bolded? lol","labels":1,"seconds_difference":989.0,"score_ratio":2.6842105263} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqpp4","c_root_id_B":"itevgzi","created_at_utc_A":1666491214,"created_at_utc_B":1666493621,"score_A":4,"score_B":51,"human_ref_A":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","human_ref_B":"You keep saying the word \"dating\" but it seems like what you are actually talking about is hitting on strangers. Is that accurate?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2407.0,"score_ratio":12.75} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itevgzi","c_root_id_B":"iteqwt1","created_at_utc_A":1666493621,"created_at_utc_B":1666491313,"score_A":51,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You keep saying the word \"dating\" but it seems like what you are actually talking about is hitting on strangers. Is that accurate?","human_ref_B":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2308.0,"score_ratio":17.0} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itf19kt","c_root_id_B":"itfdb6x","created_at_utc_A":1666496809,"created_at_utc_B":1666504864,"score_A":28,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"So if I am trying to date women I shouldn't ask women for advice? That seems like a horrible idea. My female friends have been some of the best sources of information when it comes to dating.","human_ref_B":"Dating is a numbers game. But it's not the numbers game that men think it is. And certainly not the numbers game that the Manosphere thinks it is. Have interests. Make friends. Be social. Don't approach and creep on women. These are all bits of advice from the women-dominated subs. *And they're completely correct.* When you make friends, you get to meet new people through those friends. Those new people can become new friends or acquaintances. By being social, you get to interact with more people, and eventually you're going to meet someone that you just naturally hit it off with, that you just naturally have chemistry with. THAT is the true essence of the numbers game. It's not about pressuring girls (or yourself) by cold-approaching strangers and interrupting others' good times. You're not a dick-torpedo honing in on the hottest thing you see. It's about making friends until you eventually make a friend that is extra special. So yeah, if you want success in dating, follow the girls' advice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8055.0,"score_ratio":1.5357142857} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itetjnv","c_root_id_B":"itfdb6x","created_at_utc_A":1666492632,"created_at_utc_B":1666504864,"score_A":19,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"I think it's wrong to avoid feminist subs when looking for advice about dating, but I would agree that in general there are better places to get advice. You specifically linked r\/TwoXChromosomes , which in their rule 4 lists relationship advice as irrelevant and off-topic for their subreddit. I think they would agree with you to not look for relationship advice there, but occasionally browsing and remembering some woman's perspectives on dates (both good and bad) should still provide useful insight. What do you mean by dating if you're a man is mostly a numbers game? Edit: on mobile, why is some of the text bolded? lol","human_ref_B":"Dating is a numbers game. But it's not the numbers game that men think it is. And certainly not the numbers game that the Manosphere thinks it is. Have interests. Make friends. Be social. Don't approach and creep on women. These are all bits of advice from the women-dominated subs. *And they're completely correct.* When you make friends, you get to meet new people through those friends. Those new people can become new friends or acquaintances. By being social, you get to interact with more people, and eventually you're going to meet someone that you just naturally hit it off with, that you just naturally have chemistry with. THAT is the true essence of the numbers game. It's not about pressuring girls (or yourself) by cold-approaching strangers and interrupting others' good times. You're not a dick-torpedo honing in on the hottest thing you see. It's about making friends until you eventually make a friend that is extra special. So yeah, if you want success in dating, follow the girls' advice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12232.0,"score_ratio":2.2631578947} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itf4i8l","c_root_id_B":"itfdb6x","created_at_utc_A":1666498770,"created_at_utc_B":1666504864,"score_A":11,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"You are so right but also so wrong. Trusting a person or a few people to have good advice about anything is what people should not do. Polling r\/AskWoman would certainly provide useful data points in a search for useful strategies to be more attractive to prospective dates. Following up on the information in other forums, with people in real life, with relatives, with your mom, etc. would provide useful data from other sets of perspectives. Following up with meaningful research about human psychology and on verbal and nonverbal communication would provide more information on how to apply the wisest bits of advice successfully. Summary: yes no you are so wrong right lol. Gaining data from as many diverse sources as is practical would allow for the wisest advice to become apparent. Choosing to ignore meaningful sources of information decreases the value of the research.","human_ref_B":"Dating is a numbers game. But it's not the numbers game that men think it is. And certainly not the numbers game that the Manosphere thinks it is. Have interests. Make friends. Be social. Don't approach and creep on women. These are all bits of advice from the women-dominated subs. *And they're completely correct.* When you make friends, you get to meet new people through those friends. Those new people can become new friends or acquaintances. By being social, you get to interact with more people, and eventually you're going to meet someone that you just naturally hit it off with, that you just naturally have chemistry with. THAT is the true essence of the numbers game. It's not about pressuring girls (or yourself) by cold-approaching strangers and interrupting others' good times. You're not a dick-torpedo honing in on the hottest thing you see. It's about making friends until you eventually make a friend that is extra special. So yeah, if you want success in dating, follow the girls' advice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6094.0,"score_ratio":3.9090909091} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfdb6x","c_root_id_B":"itevmu5","created_at_utc_A":1666504864,"created_at_utc_B":1666493706,"score_A":43,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Dating is a numbers game. But it's not the numbers game that men think it is. And certainly not the numbers game that the Manosphere thinks it is. Have interests. Make friends. Be social. Don't approach and creep on women. These are all bits of advice from the women-dominated subs. *And they're completely correct.* When you make friends, you get to meet new people through those friends. Those new people can become new friends or acquaintances. By being social, you get to interact with more people, and eventually you're going to meet someone that you just naturally hit it off with, that you just naturally have chemistry with. THAT is the true essence of the numbers game. It's not about pressuring girls (or yourself) by cold-approaching strangers and interrupting others' good times. You're not a dick-torpedo honing in on the hottest thing you see. It's about making friends until you eventually make a friend that is extra special. So yeah, if you want success in dating, follow the girls' advice.","human_ref_B":"> The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone I don't frequent these subs. So, I'm not sure what specific advice you are referring to. But, I think, if the right questions were asked, you could get good answers from a women dominated subreddit. If you asked about the contexts and means by which women would like to receive expressions of romantic interest, I would guess you would get helpful responses.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11158.0,"score_ratio":7.1666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfdb6x","c_root_id_B":"itf2pu8","created_at_utc_A":1666504864,"created_at_utc_B":1666497677,"score_A":43,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Dating is a numbers game. But it's not the numbers game that men think it is. And certainly not the numbers game that the Manosphere thinks it is. Have interests. Make friends. Be social. Don't approach and creep on women. These are all bits of advice from the women-dominated subs. *And they're completely correct.* When you make friends, you get to meet new people through those friends. Those new people can become new friends or acquaintances. By being social, you get to interact with more people, and eventually you're going to meet someone that you just naturally hit it off with, that you just naturally have chemistry with. THAT is the true essence of the numbers game. It's not about pressuring girls (or yourself) by cold-approaching strangers and interrupting others' good times. You're not a dick-torpedo honing in on the hottest thing you see. It's about making friends until you eventually make a friend that is extra special. So yeah, if you want success in dating, follow the girls' advice.","human_ref_B":"The answer really lies in what your goal is. If you're looking to pick up a woman without investing time in exploring who she is and whether you are actually potentially compatible, then you may be right: men probably have better tips on how to do this. If you're looking for an actual relationship with someone you can grow to care about and who grows to care about you, women's subs have lots to offer. I'm pretty sure, however, that both will tell you the same thing: what works best is confidence. If you like yourself, others will, too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7187.0,"score_ratio":7.1666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqpp4","c_root_id_B":"itfdb6x","created_at_utc_A":1666491214,"created_at_utc_B":1666504864,"score_A":4,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","human_ref_B":"Dating is a numbers game. But it's not the numbers game that men think it is. And certainly not the numbers game that the Manosphere thinks it is. Have interests. Make friends. Be social. Don't approach and creep on women. These are all bits of advice from the women-dominated subs. *And they're completely correct.* When you make friends, you get to meet new people through those friends. Those new people can become new friends or acquaintances. By being social, you get to interact with more people, and eventually you're going to meet someone that you just naturally hit it off with, that you just naturally have chemistry with. THAT is the true essence of the numbers game. It's not about pressuring girls (or yourself) by cold-approaching strangers and interrupting others' good times. You're not a dick-torpedo honing in on the hottest thing you see. It's about making friends until you eventually make a friend that is extra special. So yeah, if you want success in dating, follow the girls' advice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13650.0,"score_ratio":10.75} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqwt1","c_root_id_B":"itfdb6x","created_at_utc_A":1666491313,"created_at_utc_B":1666504864,"score_A":3,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","human_ref_B":"Dating is a numbers game. But it's not the numbers game that men think it is. And certainly not the numbers game that the Manosphere thinks it is. Have interests. Make friends. Be social. Don't approach and creep on women. These are all bits of advice from the women-dominated subs. *And they're completely correct.* When you make friends, you get to meet new people through those friends. Those new people can become new friends or acquaintances. By being social, you get to interact with more people, and eventually you're going to meet someone that you just naturally hit it off with, that you just naturally have chemistry with. THAT is the true essence of the numbers game. It's not about pressuring girls (or yourself) by cold-approaching strangers and interrupting others' good times. You're not a dick-torpedo honing in on the hottest thing you see. It's about making friends until you eventually make a friend that is extra special. So yeah, if you want success in dating, follow the girls' advice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13551.0,"score_ratio":14.3333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itf19kt","c_root_id_B":"itetjnv","created_at_utc_A":1666496809,"created_at_utc_B":1666492632,"score_A":28,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"So if I am trying to date women I shouldn't ask women for advice? That seems like a horrible idea. My female friends have been some of the best sources of information when it comes to dating.","human_ref_B":"I think it's wrong to avoid feminist subs when looking for advice about dating, but I would agree that in general there are better places to get advice. You specifically linked r\/TwoXChromosomes , which in their rule 4 lists relationship advice as irrelevant and off-topic for their subreddit. I think they would agree with you to not look for relationship advice there, but occasionally browsing and remembering some woman's perspectives on dates (both good and bad) should still provide useful insight. What do you mean by dating if you're a man is mostly a numbers game? Edit: on mobile, why is some of the text bolded? lol","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4177.0,"score_ratio":1.4736842105} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itevmu5","c_root_id_B":"itf19kt","created_at_utc_A":1666493706,"created_at_utc_B":1666496809,"score_A":6,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"> The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone I don't frequent these subs. So, I'm not sure what specific advice you are referring to. But, I think, if the right questions were asked, you could get good answers from a women dominated subreddit. If you asked about the contexts and means by which women would like to receive expressions of romantic interest, I would guess you would get helpful responses.","human_ref_B":"So if I am trying to date women I shouldn't ask women for advice? That seems like a horrible idea. My female friends have been some of the best sources of information when it comes to dating.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3103.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itf19kt","c_root_id_B":"iteqpp4","created_at_utc_A":1666496809,"created_at_utc_B":1666491214,"score_A":28,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"So if I am trying to date women I shouldn't ask women for advice? That seems like a horrible idea. My female friends have been some of the best sources of information when it comes to dating.","human_ref_B":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5595.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqwt1","c_root_id_B":"itf19kt","created_at_utc_A":1666491313,"created_at_utc_B":1666496809,"score_A":3,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","human_ref_B":"So if I am trying to date women I shouldn't ask women for advice? That seems like a horrible idea. My female friends have been some of the best sources of information when it comes to dating.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5496.0,"score_ratio":9.3333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itetjnv","c_root_id_B":"iteqpp4","created_at_utc_A":1666492632,"created_at_utc_B":1666491214,"score_A":19,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think it's wrong to avoid feminist subs when looking for advice about dating, but I would agree that in general there are better places to get advice. You specifically linked r\/TwoXChromosomes , which in their rule 4 lists relationship advice as irrelevant and off-topic for their subreddit. I think they would agree with you to not look for relationship advice there, but occasionally browsing and remembering some woman's perspectives on dates (both good and bad) should still provide useful insight. What do you mean by dating if you're a man is mostly a numbers game? Edit: on mobile, why is some of the text bolded? lol","human_ref_B":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1418.0,"score_ratio":4.75} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itetjnv","c_root_id_B":"iteqwt1","created_at_utc_A":1666492632,"created_at_utc_B":1666491313,"score_A":19,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think it's wrong to avoid feminist subs when looking for advice about dating, but I would agree that in general there are better places to get advice. You specifically linked r\/TwoXChromosomes , which in their rule 4 lists relationship advice as irrelevant and off-topic for their subreddit. I think they would agree with you to not look for relationship advice there, but occasionally browsing and remembering some woman's perspectives on dates (both good and bad) should still provide useful insight. What do you mean by dating if you're a man is mostly a numbers game? Edit: on mobile, why is some of the text bolded? lol","human_ref_B":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1319.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itf4i8l","c_root_id_B":"itevmu5","created_at_utc_A":1666498770,"created_at_utc_B":1666493706,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You are so right but also so wrong. Trusting a person or a few people to have good advice about anything is what people should not do. Polling r\/AskWoman would certainly provide useful data points in a search for useful strategies to be more attractive to prospective dates. Following up on the information in other forums, with people in real life, with relatives, with your mom, etc. would provide useful data from other sets of perspectives. Following up with meaningful research about human psychology and on verbal and nonverbal communication would provide more information on how to apply the wisest bits of advice successfully. Summary: yes no you are so wrong right lol. Gaining data from as many diverse sources as is practical would allow for the wisest advice to become apparent. Choosing to ignore meaningful sources of information decreases the value of the research.","human_ref_B":"> The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone I don't frequent these subs. So, I'm not sure what specific advice you are referring to. But, I think, if the right questions were asked, you could get good answers from a women dominated subreddit. If you asked about the contexts and means by which women would like to receive expressions of romantic interest, I would guess you would get helpful responses.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5064.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itf2pu8","c_root_id_B":"itf4i8l","created_at_utc_A":1666497677,"created_at_utc_B":1666498770,"score_A":6,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The answer really lies in what your goal is. If you're looking to pick up a woman without investing time in exploring who she is and whether you are actually potentially compatible, then you may be right: men probably have better tips on how to do this. If you're looking for an actual relationship with someone you can grow to care about and who grows to care about you, women's subs have lots to offer. I'm pretty sure, however, that both will tell you the same thing: what works best is confidence. If you like yourself, others will, too.","human_ref_B":"You are so right but also so wrong. Trusting a person or a few people to have good advice about anything is what people should not do. Polling r\/AskWoman would certainly provide useful data points in a search for useful strategies to be more attractive to prospective dates. Following up on the information in other forums, with people in real life, with relatives, with your mom, etc. would provide useful data from other sets of perspectives. Following up with meaningful research about human psychology and on verbal and nonverbal communication would provide more information on how to apply the wisest bits of advice successfully. Summary: yes no you are so wrong right lol. Gaining data from as many diverse sources as is practical would allow for the wisest advice to become apparent. Choosing to ignore meaningful sources of information decreases the value of the research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1093.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqpp4","c_root_id_B":"itf4i8l","created_at_utc_A":1666491214,"created_at_utc_B":1666498770,"score_A":4,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","human_ref_B":"You are so right but also so wrong. Trusting a person or a few people to have good advice about anything is what people should not do. Polling r\/AskWoman would certainly provide useful data points in a search for useful strategies to be more attractive to prospective dates. Following up on the information in other forums, with people in real life, with relatives, with your mom, etc. would provide useful data from other sets of perspectives. Following up with meaningful research about human psychology and on verbal and nonverbal communication would provide more information on how to apply the wisest bits of advice successfully. Summary: yes no you are so wrong right lol. Gaining data from as many diverse sources as is practical would allow for the wisest advice to become apparent. Choosing to ignore meaningful sources of information decreases the value of the research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7556.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqwt1","c_root_id_B":"itf4i8l","created_at_utc_A":1666491313,"created_at_utc_B":1666498770,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","human_ref_B":"You are so right but also so wrong. Trusting a person or a few people to have good advice about anything is what people should not do. Polling r\/AskWoman would certainly provide useful data points in a search for useful strategies to be more attractive to prospective dates. Following up on the information in other forums, with people in real life, with relatives, with your mom, etc. would provide useful data from other sets of perspectives. Following up with meaningful research about human psychology and on verbal and nonverbal communication would provide more information on how to apply the wisest bits of advice successfully. Summary: yes no you are so wrong right lol. Gaining data from as many diverse sources as is practical would allow for the wisest advice to become apparent. Choosing to ignore meaningful sources of information decreases the value of the research.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7457.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfwcx1","c_root_id_B":"itevmu5","created_at_utc_A":1666520453,"created_at_utc_B":1666493706,"score_A":10,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game Maybe it's semantics, but 'dating,' to me, revolves around common interests and personality (as opposed to just getting laid), which doesn't work as 'a numbers game.' It's more of a 'participate in your interests and hobbies and you'll meet someone with similar interests and hobbies' game. > especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. As an anxious intorvert, this is not my experience with dating. Dating \"as a numbers game\" is just another way to say that women are interchangable \/ all the same, which I disagree with. > If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. Why? There's no reasoning behind this statement. A laundry list of what? > This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. Why would it be bad for guys to not annoy women? If the situation is \"good\" for someone, why go against their wishes? Is annoying people really a reasonable dating strategy? > So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give? I believe you are, yes. Because you don't seem to know what the advice \"would\" be (since you have to think of what will \"probably\" happen instead of knowing what does happen). Also, there is no reasoning behind your claims, just claims. To me, asking women about women makes a *lot* of sense.","human_ref_B":"> The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone I don't frequent these subs. So, I'm not sure what specific advice you are referring to. But, I think, if the right questions were asked, you could get good answers from a women dominated subreddit. If you asked about the contexts and means by which women would like to receive expressions of romantic interest, I would guess you would get helpful responses.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26747.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itf2pu8","c_root_id_B":"itfwcx1","created_at_utc_A":1666497677,"created_at_utc_B":1666520453,"score_A":6,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"The answer really lies in what your goal is. If you're looking to pick up a woman without investing time in exploring who she is and whether you are actually potentially compatible, then you may be right: men probably have better tips on how to do this. If you're looking for an actual relationship with someone you can grow to care about and who grows to care about you, women's subs have lots to offer. I'm pretty sure, however, that both will tell you the same thing: what works best is confidence. If you like yourself, others will, too.","human_ref_B":"> Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game Maybe it's semantics, but 'dating,' to me, revolves around common interests and personality (as opposed to just getting laid), which doesn't work as 'a numbers game.' It's more of a 'participate in your interests and hobbies and you'll meet someone with similar interests and hobbies' game. > especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. As an anxious intorvert, this is not my experience with dating. Dating \"as a numbers game\" is just another way to say that women are interchangable \/ all the same, which I disagree with. > If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. Why? There's no reasoning behind this statement. A laundry list of what? > This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. Why would it be bad for guys to not annoy women? If the situation is \"good\" for someone, why go against their wishes? Is annoying people really a reasonable dating strategy? > So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give? I believe you are, yes. Because you don't seem to know what the advice \"would\" be (since you have to think of what will \"probably\" happen instead of knowing what does happen). Also, there is no reasoning behind your claims, just claims. To me, asking women about women makes a *lot* of sense.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22776.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfwcx1","c_root_id_B":"itfv5qa","created_at_utc_A":1666520453,"created_at_utc_B":1666519488,"score_A":10,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game Maybe it's semantics, but 'dating,' to me, revolves around common interests and personality (as opposed to just getting laid), which doesn't work as 'a numbers game.' It's more of a 'participate in your interests and hobbies and you'll meet someone with similar interests and hobbies' game. > especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. As an anxious intorvert, this is not my experience with dating. Dating \"as a numbers game\" is just another way to say that women are interchangable \/ all the same, which I disagree with. > If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. Why? There's no reasoning behind this statement. A laundry list of what? > This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. Why would it be bad for guys to not annoy women? If the situation is \"good\" for someone, why go against their wishes? Is annoying people really a reasonable dating strategy? > So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give? I believe you are, yes. Because you don't seem to know what the advice \"would\" be (since you have to think of what will \"probably\" happen instead of knowing what does happen). Also, there is no reasoning behind your claims, just claims. To me, asking women about women makes a *lot* of sense.","human_ref_B":">If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. \"What to do\" insinuates that there even is something *to do*. That's there even exists some \"technique\" that could make even a previously uninterested woman suddenly take interest, like a Konami code for the final boss or something. Women aren't keeping that knowledge from men. It doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of random encounters any man can have with any woman at any given time. Some or none of those encounters may or not lead to romantic relationships. Some or none of those romantic relationships may or not be happy. It's all chaos. Hope for anything but is a coping mechanism that breeds toxicity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":965.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfwcx1","c_root_id_B":"itfh6dp","created_at_utc_A":1666520453,"created_at_utc_B":1666507908,"score_A":10,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game Maybe it's semantics, but 'dating,' to me, revolves around common interests and personality (as opposed to just getting laid), which doesn't work as 'a numbers game.' It's more of a 'participate in your interests and hobbies and you'll meet someone with similar interests and hobbies' game. > especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. As an anxious intorvert, this is not my experience with dating. Dating \"as a numbers game\" is just another way to say that women are interchangable \/ all the same, which I disagree with. > If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. Why? There's no reasoning behind this statement. A laundry list of what? > This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. Why would it be bad for guys to not annoy women? If the situation is \"good\" for someone, why go against their wishes? Is annoying people really a reasonable dating strategy? > So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give? I believe you are, yes. Because you don't seem to know what the advice \"would\" be (since you have to think of what will \"probably\" happen instead of knowing what does happen). Also, there is no reasoning behind your claims, just claims. To me, asking women about women makes a *lot* of sense.","human_ref_B":"You're really discrediting a lot of guy's logical thinking abilities. If a guy gives up asking women out just because some women told him it's annoying, he must not want it bad enough. Most guys can acknowledge other people's viewpoints without taking every word to be a rulebook for life. Do you disagree?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12545.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqpp4","c_root_id_B":"itfwcx1","created_at_utc_A":1666491214,"created_at_utc_B":1666520453,"score_A":4,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","human_ref_B":"> Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game Maybe it's semantics, but 'dating,' to me, revolves around common interests and personality (as opposed to just getting laid), which doesn't work as 'a numbers game.' It's more of a 'participate in your interests and hobbies and you'll meet someone with similar interests and hobbies' game. > especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. As an anxious intorvert, this is not my experience with dating. Dating \"as a numbers game\" is just another way to say that women are interchangable \/ all the same, which I disagree with. > If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. Why? There's no reasoning behind this statement. A laundry list of what? > This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. Why would it be bad for guys to not annoy women? If the situation is \"good\" for someone, why go against their wishes? Is annoying people really a reasonable dating strategy? > So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give? I believe you are, yes. Because you don't seem to know what the advice \"would\" be (since you have to think of what will \"probably\" happen instead of knowing what does happen). Also, there is no reasoning behind your claims, just claims. To me, asking women about women makes a *lot* of sense.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29239.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqwt1","c_root_id_B":"itfwcx1","created_at_utc_A":1666491313,"created_at_utc_B":1666520453,"score_A":3,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","human_ref_B":"> Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game Maybe it's semantics, but 'dating,' to me, revolves around common interests and personality (as opposed to just getting laid), which doesn't work as 'a numbers game.' It's more of a 'participate in your interests and hobbies and you'll meet someone with similar interests and hobbies' game. > especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. As an anxious intorvert, this is not my experience with dating. Dating \"as a numbers game\" is just another way to say that women are interchangable \/ all the same, which I disagree with. > If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. Why? There's no reasoning behind this statement. A laundry list of what? > This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. Why would it be bad for guys to not annoy women? If the situation is \"good\" for someone, why go against their wishes? Is annoying people really a reasonable dating strategy? > So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give? I believe you are, yes. Because you don't seem to know what the advice \"would\" be (since you have to think of what will \"probably\" happen instead of knowing what does happen). Also, there is no reasoning behind your claims, just claims. To me, asking women about women makes a *lot* of sense.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29140.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfwcx1","c_root_id_B":"itfiuhu","created_at_utc_A":1666520453,"created_at_utc_B":1666509263,"score_A":10,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game Maybe it's semantics, but 'dating,' to me, revolves around common interests and personality (as opposed to just getting laid), which doesn't work as 'a numbers game.' It's more of a 'participate in your interests and hobbies and you'll meet someone with similar interests and hobbies' game. > especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. As an anxious intorvert, this is not my experience with dating. Dating \"as a numbers game\" is just another way to say that women are interchangable \/ all the same, which I disagree with. > If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. Why? There's no reasoning behind this statement. A laundry list of what? > This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. Why would it be bad for guys to not annoy women? If the situation is \"good\" for someone, why go against their wishes? Is annoying people really a reasonable dating strategy? > So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give? I believe you are, yes. Because you don't seem to know what the advice \"would\" be (since you have to think of what will \"probably\" happen instead of knowing what does happen). Also, there is no reasoning behind your claims, just claims. To me, asking women about women makes a *lot* of sense.","human_ref_B":"I think asking for dating advice on forums not dedicated to dating is looking for advice in the wrong places. You\u2019ll get men who hate women or women who hate men. You need to ask women who are currently trying to date. You need to ask those who are trying to date and not jaded by the entire experience. It\u2019s like asking someone who was just bitten by a dog the correct way to approach one. They\u2019ll already tell you to be guarded and fearful. Whereas if you ask someone who has approached dogs before or currently approaching dogs, they\u2019ll know correct procedures to avoid a bad interaction. You need a healthy mix of advice from men AND women on how to navigate the dating world. Women advising on not to \u201cbother women\u201d are either jaded or you may be interpreting their comments wrong. It\u2019s all about context. Approach a woman is correct spaces. Personally, I don\u2019t want to be hit on whilst I\u2019m grocery shopping. I\u2019m mid task and not there to meet men\/women. However, if I\u2019m on a night out, at an event\/party etc then that\u2019s the appropriate situation where approaching me would be well received.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11190.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itftuo6","c_root_id_B":"itfwcx1","created_at_utc_A":1666518398,"created_at_utc_B":1666520453,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"To \/u\/ThrowAway4AmITA23, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.*\r \r You are required to **demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind** (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per Rule B.","human_ref_B":"> Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game Maybe it's semantics, but 'dating,' to me, revolves around common interests and personality (as opposed to just getting laid), which doesn't work as 'a numbers game.' It's more of a 'participate in your interests and hobbies and you'll meet someone with similar interests and hobbies' game. > especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. As an anxious intorvert, this is not my experience with dating. Dating \"as a numbers game\" is just another way to say that women are interchangable \/ all the same, which I disagree with. > If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. Why? There's no reasoning behind this statement. A laundry list of what? > This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. Why would it be bad for guys to not annoy women? If the situation is \"good\" for someone, why go against their wishes? Is annoying people really a reasonable dating strategy? > So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give? I believe you are, yes. Because you don't seem to know what the advice \"would\" be (since you have to think of what will \"probably\" happen instead of knowing what does happen). Also, there is no reasoning behind your claims, just claims. To me, asking women about women makes a *lot* of sense.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2055.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itgo1li","c_root_id_B":"itevmu5","created_at_utc_A":1666536530,"created_at_utc_B":1666493706,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"It's great to get women's perspective on dating, and these subs provide a snapshot of some people's experience. It would be I'll advised to base your entire dating knowledge on either\/both of these subs... But that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask, read, and think about the messages. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Sometimes you have to understand that one person has had a horrible experience and their responses are going to be based on that information. Your premise is that dating is a numbers game. Well... Maybe... It depends on what your after. What I get out of 2xChromosome is this: don't be creepy, don't be over aggressive, be respectful. Don't pretend to be a friend or try to get in as a friend, and then flip the script into something romantic. If you'r goal is to \"land a woman\" then I can see why you think it's a numbers game. If I instead you're finding yourself attracted to someone, not just physically, but because she is a great person....then knowing how to approach her without scarring her off by being a typical \"numbers game dude\", will probably go better if you have someone from the opposite sex giving tidbits of advice. Wanting to date a person (emphasis on \"a person\") is not the same as wanting to find a person to date.","human_ref_B":"> The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone I don't frequent these subs. So, I'm not sure what specific advice you are referring to. But, I think, if the right questions were asked, you could get good answers from a women dominated subreddit. If you asked about the contexts and means by which women would like to receive expressions of romantic interest, I would guess you would get helpful responses.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":42824.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itgo1li","c_root_id_B":"itf2pu8","created_at_utc_A":1666536530,"created_at_utc_B":1666497677,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"It's great to get women's perspective on dating, and these subs provide a snapshot of some people's experience. It would be I'll advised to base your entire dating knowledge on either\/both of these subs... But that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask, read, and think about the messages. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Sometimes you have to understand that one person has had a horrible experience and their responses are going to be based on that information. Your premise is that dating is a numbers game. Well... Maybe... It depends on what your after. What I get out of 2xChromosome is this: don't be creepy, don't be over aggressive, be respectful. Don't pretend to be a friend or try to get in as a friend, and then flip the script into something romantic. If you'r goal is to \"land a woman\" then I can see why you think it's a numbers game. If I instead you're finding yourself attracted to someone, not just physically, but because she is a great person....then knowing how to approach her without scarring her off by being a typical \"numbers game dude\", will probably go better if you have someone from the opposite sex giving tidbits of advice. Wanting to date a person (emphasis on \"a person\") is not the same as wanting to find a person to date.","human_ref_B":"The answer really lies in what your goal is. If you're looking to pick up a woman without investing time in exploring who she is and whether you are actually potentially compatible, then you may be right: men probably have better tips on how to do this. If you're looking for an actual relationship with someone you can grow to care about and who grows to care about you, women's subs have lots to offer. I'm pretty sure, however, that both will tell you the same thing: what works best is confidence. If you like yourself, others will, too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":38853.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itgo1li","c_root_id_B":"itfh6dp","created_at_utc_A":1666536530,"created_at_utc_B":1666507908,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"It's great to get women's perspective on dating, and these subs provide a snapshot of some people's experience. It would be I'll advised to base your entire dating knowledge on either\/both of these subs... But that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask, read, and think about the messages. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Sometimes you have to understand that one person has had a horrible experience and their responses are going to be based on that information. Your premise is that dating is a numbers game. Well... Maybe... It depends on what your after. What I get out of 2xChromosome is this: don't be creepy, don't be over aggressive, be respectful. Don't pretend to be a friend or try to get in as a friend, and then flip the script into something romantic. If you'r goal is to \"land a woman\" then I can see why you think it's a numbers game. If I instead you're finding yourself attracted to someone, not just physically, but because she is a great person....then knowing how to approach her without scarring her off by being a typical \"numbers game dude\", will probably go better if you have someone from the opposite sex giving tidbits of advice. Wanting to date a person (emphasis on \"a person\") is not the same as wanting to find a person to date.","human_ref_B":"You're really discrediting a lot of guy's logical thinking abilities. If a guy gives up asking women out just because some women told him it's annoying, he must not want it bad enough. Most guys can acknowledge other people's viewpoints without taking every word to be a rulebook for life. Do you disagree?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28622.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itgo1li","c_root_id_B":"itgerez","created_at_utc_A":1666536530,"created_at_utc_B":1666532225,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It's great to get women's perspective on dating, and these subs provide a snapshot of some people's experience. It would be I'll advised to base your entire dating knowledge on either\/both of these subs... But that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask, read, and think about the messages. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Sometimes you have to understand that one person has had a horrible experience and their responses are going to be based on that information. Your premise is that dating is a numbers game. Well... Maybe... It depends on what your after. What I get out of 2xChromosome is this: don't be creepy, don't be over aggressive, be respectful. Don't pretend to be a friend or try to get in as a friend, and then flip the script into something romantic. If you'r goal is to \"land a woman\" then I can see why you think it's a numbers game. If I instead you're finding yourself attracted to someone, not just physically, but because she is a great person....then knowing how to approach her without scarring her off by being a typical \"numbers game dude\", will probably go better if you have someone from the opposite sex giving tidbits of advice. Wanting to date a person (emphasis on \"a person\") is not the same as wanting to find a person to date.","human_ref_B":"I disagree at least from a heterosexual standpoint, I can\u2019t speak to other sexualities but dating functionality is about learning to communicate effectively and openly. Women have valid advice and opinions because they know aspects of dating that men can\u2019t by virtue of their life experiences and they should be heard.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4305.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqpp4","c_root_id_B":"itgo1li","created_at_utc_A":1666491214,"created_at_utc_B":1666536530,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","human_ref_B":"It's great to get women's perspective on dating, and these subs provide a snapshot of some people's experience. It would be I'll advised to base your entire dating knowledge on either\/both of these subs... But that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask, read, and think about the messages. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Sometimes you have to understand that one person has had a horrible experience and their responses are going to be based on that information. Your premise is that dating is a numbers game. Well... Maybe... It depends on what your after. What I get out of 2xChromosome is this: don't be creepy, don't be over aggressive, be respectful. Don't pretend to be a friend or try to get in as a friend, and then flip the script into something romantic. If you'r goal is to \"land a woman\" then I can see why you think it's a numbers game. If I instead you're finding yourself attracted to someone, not just physically, but because she is a great person....then knowing how to approach her without scarring her off by being a typical \"numbers game dude\", will probably go better if you have someone from the opposite sex giving tidbits of advice. Wanting to date a person (emphasis on \"a person\") is not the same as wanting to find a person to date.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":45316.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itgo1li","c_root_id_B":"iteqwt1","created_at_utc_A":1666536530,"created_at_utc_B":1666491313,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's great to get women's perspective on dating, and these subs provide a snapshot of some people's experience. It would be I'll advised to base your entire dating knowledge on either\/both of these subs... But that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask, read, and think about the messages. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Sometimes you have to understand that one person has had a horrible experience and their responses are going to be based on that information. Your premise is that dating is a numbers game. Well... Maybe... It depends on what your after. What I get out of 2xChromosome is this: don't be creepy, don't be over aggressive, be respectful. Don't pretend to be a friend or try to get in as a friend, and then flip the script into something romantic. If you'r goal is to \"land a woman\" then I can see why you think it's a numbers game. If I instead you're finding yourself attracted to someone, not just physically, but because she is a great person....then knowing how to approach her without scarring her off by being a typical \"numbers game dude\", will probably go better if you have someone from the opposite sex giving tidbits of advice. Wanting to date a person (emphasis on \"a person\") is not the same as wanting to find a person to date.","human_ref_B":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":45217.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itgo1li","c_root_id_B":"itfiuhu","created_at_utc_A":1666536530,"created_at_utc_B":1666509263,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It's great to get women's perspective on dating, and these subs provide a snapshot of some people's experience. It would be I'll advised to base your entire dating knowledge on either\/both of these subs... But that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask, read, and think about the messages. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Sometimes you have to understand that one person has had a horrible experience and their responses are going to be based on that information. Your premise is that dating is a numbers game. Well... Maybe... It depends on what your after. What I get out of 2xChromosome is this: don't be creepy, don't be over aggressive, be respectful. Don't pretend to be a friend or try to get in as a friend, and then flip the script into something romantic. If you'r goal is to \"land a woman\" then I can see why you think it's a numbers game. If I instead you're finding yourself attracted to someone, not just physically, but because she is a great person....then knowing how to approach her without scarring her off by being a typical \"numbers game dude\", will probably go better if you have someone from the opposite sex giving tidbits of advice. Wanting to date a person (emphasis on \"a person\") is not the same as wanting to find a person to date.","human_ref_B":"I think asking for dating advice on forums not dedicated to dating is looking for advice in the wrong places. You\u2019ll get men who hate women or women who hate men. You need to ask women who are currently trying to date. You need to ask those who are trying to date and not jaded by the entire experience. It\u2019s like asking someone who was just bitten by a dog the correct way to approach one. They\u2019ll already tell you to be guarded and fearful. Whereas if you ask someone who has approached dogs before or currently approaching dogs, they\u2019ll know correct procedures to avoid a bad interaction. You need a healthy mix of advice from men AND women on how to navigate the dating world. Women advising on not to \u201cbother women\u201d are either jaded or you may be interpreting their comments wrong. It\u2019s all about context. Approach a woman is correct spaces. Personally, I don\u2019t want to be hit on whilst I\u2019m grocery shopping. I\u2019m mid task and not there to meet men\/women. However, if I\u2019m on a night out, at an event\/party etc then that\u2019s the appropriate situation where approaching me would be well received.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27267.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itftuo6","c_root_id_B":"itgo1li","created_at_utc_A":1666518398,"created_at_utc_B":1666536530,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"To \/u\/ThrowAway4AmITA23, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.*\r \r You are required to **demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind** (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per Rule B.","human_ref_B":"It's great to get women's perspective on dating, and these subs provide a snapshot of some people's experience. It would be I'll advised to base your entire dating knowledge on either\/both of these subs... But that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask, read, and think about the messages. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Sometimes you have to understand that one person has had a horrible experience and their responses are going to be based on that information. Your premise is that dating is a numbers game. Well... Maybe... It depends on what your after. What I get out of 2xChromosome is this: don't be creepy, don't be over aggressive, be respectful. Don't pretend to be a friend or try to get in as a friend, and then flip the script into something romantic. If you'r goal is to \"land a woman\" then I can see why you think it's a numbers game. If I instead you're finding yourself attracted to someone, not just physically, but because she is a great person....then knowing how to approach her without scarring her off by being a typical \"numbers game dude\", will probably go better if you have someone from the opposite sex giving tidbits of advice. Wanting to date a person (emphasis on \"a person\") is not the same as wanting to find a person to date.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18132.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfv5qa","c_root_id_B":"itevmu5","created_at_utc_A":1666519488,"created_at_utc_B":1666493706,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. \"What to do\" insinuates that there even is something *to do*. That's there even exists some \"technique\" that could make even a previously uninterested woman suddenly take interest, like a Konami code for the final boss or something. Women aren't keeping that knowledge from men. It doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of random encounters any man can have with any woman at any given time. Some or none of those encounters may or not lead to romantic relationships. Some or none of those romantic relationships may or not be happy. It's all chaos. Hope for anything but is a coping mechanism that breeds toxicity.","human_ref_B":"> The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone I don't frequent these subs. So, I'm not sure what specific advice you are referring to. But, I think, if the right questions were asked, you could get good answers from a women dominated subreddit. If you asked about the contexts and means by which women would like to receive expressions of romantic interest, I would guess you would get helpful responses.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25782.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqpp4","c_root_id_B":"itevmu5","created_at_utc_A":1666491214,"created_at_utc_B":1666493706,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","human_ref_B":"> The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone I don't frequent these subs. So, I'm not sure what specific advice you are referring to. But, I think, if the right questions were asked, you could get good answers from a women dominated subreddit. If you asked about the contexts and means by which women would like to receive expressions of romantic interest, I would guess you would get helpful responses.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2492.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itevmu5","c_root_id_B":"iteqwt1","created_at_utc_A":1666493706,"created_at_utc_B":1666491313,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone I don't frequent these subs. So, I'm not sure what specific advice you are referring to. But, I think, if the right questions were asked, you could get good answers from a women dominated subreddit. If you asked about the contexts and means by which women would like to receive expressions of romantic interest, I would guess you would get helpful responses.","human_ref_B":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2393.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itf2pu8","c_root_id_B":"itfv5qa","created_at_utc_A":1666497677,"created_at_utc_B":1666519488,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The answer really lies in what your goal is. If you're looking to pick up a woman without investing time in exploring who she is and whether you are actually potentially compatible, then you may be right: men probably have better tips on how to do this. If you're looking for an actual relationship with someone you can grow to care about and who grows to care about you, women's subs have lots to offer. I'm pretty sure, however, that both will tell you the same thing: what works best is confidence. If you like yourself, others will, too.","human_ref_B":">If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. \"What to do\" insinuates that there even is something *to do*. That's there even exists some \"technique\" that could make even a previously uninterested woman suddenly take interest, like a Konami code for the final boss or something. Women aren't keeping that knowledge from men. It doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of random encounters any man can have with any woman at any given time. Some or none of those encounters may or not lead to romantic relationships. Some or none of those romantic relationships may or not be happy. It's all chaos. Hope for anything but is a coping mechanism that breeds toxicity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21811.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqpp4","c_root_id_B":"itf2pu8","created_at_utc_A":1666491214,"created_at_utc_B":1666497677,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","human_ref_B":"The answer really lies in what your goal is. If you're looking to pick up a woman without investing time in exploring who she is and whether you are actually potentially compatible, then you may be right: men probably have better tips on how to do this. If you're looking for an actual relationship with someone you can grow to care about and who grows to care about you, women's subs have lots to offer. I'm pretty sure, however, that both will tell you the same thing: what works best is confidence. If you like yourself, others will, too.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6463.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqwt1","c_root_id_B":"itf2pu8","created_at_utc_A":1666491313,"created_at_utc_B":1666497677,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","human_ref_B":"The answer really lies in what your goal is. If you're looking to pick up a woman without investing time in exploring who she is and whether you are actually potentially compatible, then you may be right: men probably have better tips on how to do this. If you're looking for an actual relationship with someone you can grow to care about and who grows to care about you, women's subs have lots to offer. I'm pretty sure, however, that both will tell you the same thing: what works best is confidence. If you like yourself, others will, too.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6364.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfh6dp","c_root_id_B":"itfv5qa","created_at_utc_A":1666507908,"created_at_utc_B":1666519488,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"You're really discrediting a lot of guy's logical thinking abilities. If a guy gives up asking women out just because some women told him it's annoying, he must not want it bad enough. Most guys can acknowledge other people's viewpoints without taking every word to be a rulebook for life. Do you disagree?","human_ref_B":">If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. \"What to do\" insinuates that there even is something *to do*. That's there even exists some \"technique\" that could make even a previously uninterested woman suddenly take interest, like a Konami code for the final boss or something. Women aren't keeping that knowledge from men. It doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of random encounters any man can have with any woman at any given time. Some or none of those encounters may or not lead to romantic relationships. Some or none of those romantic relationships may or not be happy. It's all chaos. Hope for anything but is a coping mechanism that breeds toxicity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11580.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfv5qa","c_root_id_B":"iteqpp4","created_at_utc_A":1666519488,"created_at_utc_B":1666491214,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. \"What to do\" insinuates that there even is something *to do*. That's there even exists some \"technique\" that could make even a previously uninterested woman suddenly take interest, like a Konami code for the final boss or something. Women aren't keeping that knowledge from men. It doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of random encounters any man can have with any woman at any given time. Some or none of those encounters may or not lead to romantic relationships. Some or none of those romantic relationships may or not be happy. It's all chaos. Hope for anything but is a coping mechanism that breeds toxicity.","human_ref_B":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28274.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqwt1","c_root_id_B":"itfv5qa","created_at_utc_A":1666491313,"created_at_utc_B":1666519488,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","human_ref_B":">If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. \"What to do\" insinuates that there even is something *to do*. That's there even exists some \"technique\" that could make even a previously uninterested woman suddenly take interest, like a Konami code for the final boss or something. Women aren't keeping that knowledge from men. It doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of random encounters any man can have with any woman at any given time. Some or none of those encounters may or not lead to romantic relationships. Some or none of those romantic relationships may or not be happy. It's all chaos. Hope for anything but is a coping mechanism that breeds toxicity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28175.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfv5qa","c_root_id_B":"itfiuhu","created_at_utc_A":1666519488,"created_at_utc_B":1666509263,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. \"What to do\" insinuates that there even is something *to do*. That's there even exists some \"technique\" that could make even a previously uninterested woman suddenly take interest, like a Konami code for the final boss or something. Women aren't keeping that knowledge from men. It doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of random encounters any man can have with any woman at any given time. Some or none of those encounters may or not lead to romantic relationships. Some or none of those romantic relationships may or not be happy. It's all chaos. Hope for anything but is a coping mechanism that breeds toxicity.","human_ref_B":"I think asking for dating advice on forums not dedicated to dating is looking for advice in the wrong places. You\u2019ll get men who hate women or women who hate men. You need to ask women who are currently trying to date. You need to ask those who are trying to date and not jaded by the entire experience. It\u2019s like asking someone who was just bitten by a dog the correct way to approach one. They\u2019ll already tell you to be guarded and fearful. Whereas if you ask someone who has approached dogs before or currently approaching dogs, they\u2019ll know correct procedures to avoid a bad interaction. You need a healthy mix of advice from men AND women on how to navigate the dating world. Women advising on not to \u201cbother women\u201d are either jaded or you may be interpreting their comments wrong. It\u2019s all about context. Approach a woman is correct spaces. Personally, I don\u2019t want to be hit on whilst I\u2019m grocery shopping. I\u2019m mid task and not there to meet men\/women. However, if I\u2019m on a night out, at an event\/party etc then that\u2019s the appropriate situation where approaching me would be well received.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10225.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itftuo6","c_root_id_B":"itfv5qa","created_at_utc_A":1666518398,"created_at_utc_B":1666519488,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"To \/u\/ThrowAway4AmITA23, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.*\r \r You are required to **demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind** (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per Rule B.","human_ref_B":">If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. \"What to do\" insinuates that there even is something *to do*. That's there even exists some \"technique\" that could make even a previously uninterested woman suddenly take interest, like a Konami code for the final boss or something. Women aren't keeping that knowledge from men. It doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of random encounters any man can have with any woman at any given time. Some or none of those encounters may or not lead to romantic relationships. Some or none of those romantic relationships may or not be happy. It's all chaos. Hope for anything but is a coping mechanism that breeds toxicity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1090.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqpp4","c_root_id_B":"itfh6dp","created_at_utc_A":1666491214,"created_at_utc_B":1666507908,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Why do you think that women are bothered by men and they don't want to deal with them, and why do you think that is because they just inherently don't like men?","human_ref_B":"You're really discrediting a lot of guy's logical thinking abilities. If a guy gives up asking women out just because some women told him it's annoying, he must not want it bad enough. Most guys can acknowledge other people's viewpoints without taking every word to be a rulebook for life. Do you disagree?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16694.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqwt1","c_root_id_B":"itfh6dp","created_at_utc_A":1666491313,"created_at_utc_B":1666507908,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","human_ref_B":"You're really discrediting a lot of guy's logical thinking abilities. If a guy gives up asking women out just because some women told him it's annoying, he must not want it bad enough. Most guys can acknowledge other people's viewpoints without taking every word to be a rulebook for life. Do you disagree?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16595.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"iteqwt1","c_root_id_B":"itgerez","created_at_utc_A":1666491313,"created_at_utc_B":1666532225,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","human_ref_B":"I disagree at least from a heterosexual standpoint, I can\u2019t speak to other sexualities but dating functionality is about learning to communicate effectively and openly. Women have valid advice and opinions because they know aspects of dating that men can\u2019t by virtue of their life experiences and they should be heard.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":40912.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itgerez","c_root_id_B":"itftuo6","created_at_utc_A":1666532225,"created_at_utc_B":1666518398,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I disagree at least from a heterosexual standpoint, I can\u2019t speak to other sexualities but dating functionality is about learning to communicate effectively and openly. Women have valid advice and opinions because they know aspects of dating that men can\u2019t by virtue of their life experiences and they should be heard.","human_ref_B":"To \/u\/ThrowAway4AmITA23, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.*\r \r You are required to **demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind** (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per Rule B.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13827.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"yb4psi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: (Straight) Guys shouldn't look to women-dominated subs for advice about dating Subs like r\/AskWomen and r\/TwoXChromosomes tend to be bombarded with posts (in the former) or comments (in the latter) from guys asking for advice (usually about dating, sex or relationships) from women. I don't think this is a good idea. The reason why guys are asking these subs is because they know that dating experiences do change based on your gender. This means that men and women don't necessarily have the same interests. You can see this from how different AskMen is from AskWomen when it comes to talks about dating. The main reason is that typically the attitude on women-dominated subs when it comes to men is that they basically bother women and less interactions with them would be better. If guys take their advice, they're more likely to end up alone because they'll have a laundry list of things not to do and no idea of what to do. Dating if you're a guy is more of a numbers game, especially if you're introverted or socially anxious. If men take advice from these subs, they're probably going to just avoid trying dating altogether. This would be good from the POV of the people in those subs (less nervous men bothering them) but bad for the guys who follow that advice. So am I wrong that this kind of advice is bad for men or wrong that this is the advice these subs typically give?","c_root_id_A":"itfiuhu","c_root_id_B":"iteqwt1","created_at_utc_A":1666509263,"created_at_utc_B":1666491313,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think asking for dating advice on forums not dedicated to dating is looking for advice in the wrong places. You\u2019ll get men who hate women or women who hate men. You need to ask women who are currently trying to date. You need to ask those who are trying to date and not jaded by the entire experience. It\u2019s like asking someone who was just bitten by a dog the correct way to approach one. They\u2019ll already tell you to be guarded and fearful. Whereas if you ask someone who has approached dogs before or currently approaching dogs, they\u2019ll know correct procedures to avoid a bad interaction. You need a healthy mix of advice from men AND women on how to navigate the dating world. Women advising on not to \u201cbother women\u201d are either jaded or you may be interpreting their comments wrong. It\u2019s all about context. Approach a woman is correct spaces. Personally, I don\u2019t want to be hit on whilst I\u2019m grocery shopping. I\u2019m mid task and not there to meet men\/women. However, if I\u2019m on a night out, at an event\/party etc then that\u2019s the appropriate situation where approaching me would be well received.","human_ref_B":"Can you link us to some examples of the sort of advice you're talking about? It'll be a lot easier to follow your reasoning with an example.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17950.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"wg9t2i","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The current system of police interrogation in the US is unfair to the accused. I\u2019ve been recently watching some JCS Criminal Psychology videos on YouTube, (link for anyone who hasn\u2019t seen him, the videos are fantastic) where John breaks down criminal interrogations and the investigative process. More specifically, I was watching the video about Chris Watts. Quick recap, this man killed his wife and two children, was acting suspicious and was brought in for interrogation voluntarily, consented to a polygraph, and then was pressured into a total confession. Don\u2019t get me wrong, Chris was a terrible man and deserved absolutely everything coming to him, but the numbers of false confessions in the US are pretty high ( stats from falseconfessions.org ), and it leads me to believe the system is unfair to the accused. Chris went in voluntarily, but the way it was worded to him, he essentially had to come or he would look guilty. Of course, this isn\u2019t how our court system works, and refusing to come in for an interview would be inadmissible evidence, but many people probably don\u2019t know that. On top of that, they employ as many tricks as they can to get him to consent to the polygraph (lie detector), a completely inadmissible piece of evidence in the US, but he had no way of knowing that. Finally, they tell him that they \u201chave everything they need\u201d and that he just needs to come clean or it will eat at him forever. They offer a bunch of fake but lighter options and imply that those are better and make him a good person (if his wife killed the kids first, and he killed her in response, they tell him that would be okay), and then they bring his dad in, while he doesn\u2019t know he\u2019s being recorded, and he partially confesses. Finally, after one more round of intense questions, he breaks. JCS mentions how the goal the entire time is to mentally weaken him until he finally makes a dumb decision and confesses. It\u2019s shocking that he didn\u2019t get a lawyer, but if he did, his advice would\u2019ve been to walk out, say nothing, refuse the polygraph, and answer to no one, but he was pressured and tricked into believing that he had to do everything, answer to them, and eventually he broke. I\u2019m glad he got the justice he deserved, but if 25% of confessions are false confessions (see above), then this feels unfair to me. I\u2019m willing to change my mind with some convincing arguments.","c_root_id_A":"iiyoby0","c_root_id_B":"iiyk0f9","created_at_utc_A":1659644408,"created_at_utc_B":1659642784,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Issue is - how many criminals would you like to go free because of insufficient evidence? It's much easier to retract admission to guilt that is not true than to built a case with evidence to support guilty verdict for someone who is a criminal. If you were truly pressured and your verdict hangs only on your statement that you are guilty then this can be easily dismissed in court. But if you are truly a criminal and they will pressure you to confession that will include self incriminating evidence - that is a win for justice system. Interrogation by definition uses pressure. If we remove it it would be: \\- You are suspected of murder, do you confess? \\- No. \\- understandable, have a nice day And detectives will need to burn manhours to collect every scrap of evidence that will mean that he is guilty.","human_ref_B":"Is the system inherently unfair, or does it only become unfair because of the ignorance of the people? I would argue that the system is not inherently unfair (at least with regards to confession, it can be argued to be unfair in other ways, but outside of the scope of your argument). People have the right to be silent, they have a right to a lawyer, and they are not obligated to cooperate with police if they are not arrested. If people followed the system, then a lot less people would be in jail. The problem is that people don't follow the system. They ignore all the protections that the system provides them. I would compare this to a machine that is very well built, but human error keeps causing mistakes. If human error is the result of the accidents from this machine, is it the machine that is faulty, or the people using it? A car can be the most perfect vehicle ever built with the best turning ability, brakes that stop it near instantly, a solid body, etc. However, if a person is driving and does not see the red light because they are texting on their phone, is that really the car's fault? I think that the same applies with confessions and what not. By the book, it should be near impossible to put someone in jail in the American justice system. The system allows so much leeway to the accused it's almost ridiculous. So, if people do end up in jail, I think the fault is more on them than on the system. They are not using the system properly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1624.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"jqjvth","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: POC saying almost all white people are racist is a prejudiced and biased thing to say. So a friend of mine who is a POC once told me that she assumes that almost every white person, whether she knows them or not, are terrible, racist people. The few exceptions are her close friends and roommates, which includes me. I myself am white, and every now and again I think back to this. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about race, and I think that racism against white people and racism against people of color are two different ballgames in terms of how often they occur and how damaging they are. However, I consider this a pretty prejudiced and biased thing to say. I don't know if its necessarily racist, but there's something not right about assuming something based on one's skin color. If I were to say \"I think all black people are...\" I wouldn't be able to get out a sentence before whatever I would say would be judged as racist. I just feel that what she said displays some prejudice, but my friends do not think so. I'm wondering if anyone can change my mind on this or back up what I'm saying.","c_root_id_A":"gbnzw0c","c_root_id_B":"gbnpung","created_at_utc_A":1604878876,"created_at_utc_B":1604873665,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A lot of women feel they need to assume that every man they meet poses a risk of sexually harassing or assaulting them until the individual man proves otherwise. This isn't rooted in mysandry but fear and having to live in survival mode. My understanding is that it is very similar for POC with white people. It is self preservation and stems from centuries of racism","human_ref_B":"I would say your roommate is wrong to leave you and her friends out. Everyone has subconscious biases, it\u2019s part of being human. We can do work to counteract these biases in our thoughts and actions, but nobody is completely free of them. So yes, all white people have biases based on race. As does everyone else. It\u2019s why it takes active work to be anti-racist, because race-based discrimination is literally built into us.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5211.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"jqjvth","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: POC saying almost all white people are racist is a prejudiced and biased thing to say. So a friend of mine who is a POC once told me that she assumes that almost every white person, whether she knows them or not, are terrible, racist people. The few exceptions are her close friends and roommates, which includes me. I myself am white, and every now and again I think back to this. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about race, and I think that racism against white people and racism against people of color are two different ballgames in terms of how often they occur and how damaging they are. However, I consider this a pretty prejudiced and biased thing to say. I don't know if its necessarily racist, but there's something not right about assuming something based on one's skin color. If I were to say \"I think all black people are...\" I wouldn't be able to get out a sentence before whatever I would say would be judged as racist. I just feel that what she said displays some prejudice, but my friends do not think so. I'm wondering if anyone can change my mind on this or back up what I'm saying.","c_root_id_A":"gboszwd","c_root_id_B":"gbpaqpz","created_at_utc_A":1604895598,"created_at_utc_B":1604910812,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Can I ask why you wish to challenge her views\/experiences? I include experiences, because that ultimately would have shaped her views. I think you are going out your way to defend something you have obvious commonality in. And that in some way you are being affiliated in with that group. I used to also feel like this. And I sometimes still struggle not to. But I have to sometimes consciously remove myself from the debate to work around it. It's similar to that feeling when you hear comments about men being sexist as another example. No one ever debates and means literally every man ever. And it's about time we stop thinking everything is about me, you or whomever else. Which leads to asking yourself whether that issue, highlights you part or the problem. So the solution here is to keep asking yourself. Are you personally being questioned of racism? No. Are you racist? No. If no, no, why you sweating? Why don't you just listen to her experiences. Validate them. Learn. And if the above changed your view, think about AITA. Because trying to validate your defense mechanism as opposed to understanding hers is a bit shitty.","human_ref_B":"It's not prejudice and or biased, it's straight up racism to claim the color of ones skin will determine thought or behavior","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15214.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"98euoe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: -The purpose of free speech is to allow the stupid, the vile and the dangerous to freely self identify so that we can avoid and shun them. Anything that suppresses that very public self identification process only drives such speech underground where it is harder to guard against. Lets face facts- Alex Jones is an occasionally entertaining idiot. I am convinced that a significant fraction of his fan base follows him for purely entertainment purposes. But banning him from social media platforms has only made him front page news and significantly increased his news letter subscriptions. His jackassery is still available on the internet. He has in no way \"gone away\" by de-platforming him. Suppressing - by deplatforming or shadowbanning or banning- free speech only drives it underground where it cannot be monitored -is counterproductive. I have no problem with mockery or downvoting a submission or comment to the very bottom of a conversation (there are subs where my opinion is un-welcome and no useful conversation comes from it but I simply stop wasting my time there). When power- whether it be government power or corporate power or community power- is exercised to exclude someone, anyone from a conversation, the opportunity to persuade, to convince, to educate is not just lost but deliberately thrown away.","c_root_id_A":"e4fgeig","c_root_id_B":"e4fgrk6","created_at_utc_A":1534626264,"created_at_utc_B":1534626645,"score_A":8,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"You seem to have two seperate arguments here. Your first is about alex jones, and how driving him out of mainstream platforms only helps him as it gives him free publicity. I would say this is untrue as now people can\u2019t stumble into his content or have it recommended for then nearly as easily once the controversy dies down a little. As for your argument about free speech, while t would be wrong for the government to censor people, companies censoring what is on their platforms is not. As long as a company is honest about what they moderate, them moderating their own platforms however they see fit should be perfectly allowed. If the government stepped in and forced the company to not moderate at all, the company would quickly be overrun with trolls, porn, and other undesirable content. If the government draws the moderation line somewhere else, then it is very easy for this to infringe upon people\u2019s free speech by the government favoring one group\u2019s speech over another\u2019s.","human_ref_B":">Suppressing - by deplatforming or shadowbanning or banning- free speech only drives it underground where it cannot be monitored -is counterproductive. Is monitoring speech which you find troublesome better? The point of free speech isn't there because we know people with different ideas will out themselves and we can shame them. If that were the case, wouldn't people with hateful ideologies just take their ideas underground anyways? Free speech is designed to protect your ideas from government oppression. The problem we have today is a free speech issue not related to the government. It has to do with a businesses tolerance of free speech in an era where a previously unknown employee can be put on blast around the world for any opinion he might hold. Before this point the people who suppressed speech were governments. With the ability to let the world know your opinion on the internet free speech has become something of concern for private companies. In either case, free speech isn't there so we can trick people into exposing there true racist intentions, but to protect their ability to speak freely and contribute more to public discourse. We decided as a society that this public discourse was more beneficial to society than the lack of open discourse brought about by suppressed speech.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":381.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"98euoe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: -The purpose of free speech is to allow the stupid, the vile and the dangerous to freely self identify so that we can avoid and shun them. Anything that suppresses that very public self identification process only drives such speech underground where it is harder to guard against. Lets face facts- Alex Jones is an occasionally entertaining idiot. I am convinced that a significant fraction of his fan base follows him for purely entertainment purposes. But banning him from social media platforms has only made him front page news and significantly increased his news letter subscriptions. His jackassery is still available on the internet. He has in no way \"gone away\" by de-platforming him. Suppressing - by deplatforming or shadowbanning or banning- free speech only drives it underground where it cannot be monitored -is counterproductive. I have no problem with mockery or downvoting a submission or comment to the very bottom of a conversation (there are subs where my opinion is un-welcome and no useful conversation comes from it but I simply stop wasting my time there). When power- whether it be government power or corporate power or community power- is exercised to exclude someone, anyone from a conversation, the opportunity to persuade, to convince, to educate is not just lost but deliberately thrown away.","c_root_id_A":"e4fgeig","c_root_id_B":"e4fh7uh","created_at_utc_A":1534626264,"created_at_utc_B":1534627119,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"You seem to have two seperate arguments here. Your first is about alex jones, and how driving him out of mainstream platforms only helps him as it gives him free publicity. I would say this is untrue as now people can\u2019t stumble into his content or have it recommended for then nearly as easily once the controversy dies down a little. As for your argument about free speech, while t would be wrong for the government to censor people, companies censoring what is on their platforms is not. As long as a company is honest about what they moderate, them moderating their own platforms however they see fit should be perfectly allowed. If the government stepped in and forced the company to not moderate at all, the company would quickly be overrun with trolls, porn, and other undesirable content. If the government draws the moderation line somewhere else, then it is very easy for this to infringe upon people\u2019s free speech by the government favoring one group\u2019s speech over another\u2019s.","human_ref_B":"I think your position is a bit contradictory. As you correctly point out, de-platforming Alec Jones did very little to censor him. He is still welcome to publish his views through the means available to him. Yet you also asset that de-platforming is a form of free-speech suppression. So which is it? Has it suppressed him or not? While you speak in terms of suppression I think it's equally useful to think in terms of *amplification*. The platforms which deplatformed Alex Jones did so not because they wanted to suppress him but because they were uncomfortable with their platform being used to amplify some of his messages. (And replace \"uncomfortable\" with \"had a strong economic incentive re: advertisers\" if you're feeling cynical.) Your thesis that the purpose of free speech is to help identify the worst voices is a bit strange, because if it were true we should amplify the worst voices the most, which would be very strange. And people would really hate it. The purpose of free speech is to facilitate and protect free expression, and nothing else. Alex Jones hasn't lost his right to free speech.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":855.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"98euoe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: -The purpose of free speech is to allow the stupid, the vile and the dangerous to freely self identify so that we can avoid and shun them. Anything that suppresses that very public self identification process only drives such speech underground where it is harder to guard against. Lets face facts- Alex Jones is an occasionally entertaining idiot. I am convinced that a significant fraction of his fan base follows him for purely entertainment purposes. But banning him from social media platforms has only made him front page news and significantly increased his news letter subscriptions. His jackassery is still available on the internet. He has in no way \"gone away\" by de-platforming him. Suppressing - by deplatforming or shadowbanning or banning- free speech only drives it underground where it cannot be monitored -is counterproductive. I have no problem with mockery or downvoting a submission or comment to the very bottom of a conversation (there are subs where my opinion is un-welcome and no useful conversation comes from it but I simply stop wasting my time there). When power- whether it be government power or corporate power or community power- is exercised to exclude someone, anyone from a conversation, the opportunity to persuade, to convince, to educate is not just lost but deliberately thrown away.","c_root_id_A":"e4fs5h3","c_root_id_B":"e4g5b7o","created_at_utc_A":1534638639,"created_at_utc_B":1534654260,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Your entire premise is based upon the idea that engaging people with these views will cause them to change their mind. Meanwhile, all these people want isn't to discuss something in good fath with you, they merely want to engage you as it gives their ideas a platform. Look at any climate change debate. It's always 1 'believer' of climate change and 1 climate change skeptic. The division is presented as 50\/50 while it's more like 97\/3 yet we don't see that spread as we're so focused on giving everyone a voice in the debate. This has so far lead to more and more people no longer believing climate change to be real. Allowing a platform and engaging people like Alex Jones only works if these people are willing to change their mind when presented with facts. If not, they're just using whatever platform you offer them to try and indoctrinate even more people into their bullshit narrative.","human_ref_B":"Except we have historical examples where this was not the case. I'd say that the Nazis ideology was pretty stupid, vile, and dangerous, and it spread just fine while being broadcasted all over the country. For a less extreme example, a big reason why so many people in the US don't believe in climate change is due to the practice of giving equal time to opposing viewpoints on the news, even when one side is empirically wrong. When people kept hearing an equal number of people on the tube on either side of the issue, it created the perception that there was a sizable part of the scientific community which disagreed that climate change, which isn't true at all. Or again with the news, it's well established that when a high profile suicide or mass murder is plastered over the headlines we can expect to see copycats soon after. People can end up dead because some hateful or ignorant ideology (think Roger Eliot) is given so much attention. There IS danger in promoting some ideas. I'm not arguing that this means that speech needs to be restricted, just that bringing bad ideas out into the light doesn't always make them go away.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15621.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"98euoe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: -The purpose of free speech is to allow the stupid, the vile and the dangerous to freely self identify so that we can avoid and shun them. Anything that suppresses that very public self identification process only drives such speech underground where it is harder to guard against. Lets face facts- Alex Jones is an occasionally entertaining idiot. I am convinced that a significant fraction of his fan base follows him for purely entertainment purposes. But banning him from social media platforms has only made him front page news and significantly increased his news letter subscriptions. His jackassery is still available on the internet. He has in no way \"gone away\" by de-platforming him. Suppressing - by deplatforming or shadowbanning or banning- free speech only drives it underground where it cannot be monitored -is counterproductive. I have no problem with mockery or downvoting a submission or comment to the very bottom of a conversation (there are subs where my opinion is un-welcome and no useful conversation comes from it but I simply stop wasting my time there). When power- whether it be government power or corporate power or community power- is exercised to exclude someone, anyone from a conversation, the opportunity to persuade, to convince, to educate is not just lost but deliberately thrown away.","c_root_id_A":"e4g5b7o","c_root_id_B":"e4fzffu","created_at_utc_A":1534654260,"created_at_utc_B":1534646679,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Except we have historical examples where this was not the case. I'd say that the Nazis ideology was pretty stupid, vile, and dangerous, and it spread just fine while being broadcasted all over the country. For a less extreme example, a big reason why so many people in the US don't believe in climate change is due to the practice of giving equal time to opposing viewpoints on the news, even when one side is empirically wrong. When people kept hearing an equal number of people on the tube on either side of the issue, it created the perception that there was a sizable part of the scientific community which disagreed that climate change, which isn't true at all. Or again with the news, it's well established that when a high profile suicide or mass murder is plastered over the headlines we can expect to see copycats soon after. People can end up dead because some hateful or ignorant ideology (think Roger Eliot) is given so much attention. There IS danger in promoting some ideas. I'm not arguing that this means that speech needs to be restricted, just that bringing bad ideas out into the light doesn't always make them go away.","human_ref_B":"The purpose of free speech is to protect citizens from government harassment and penalty for things that they say, and even then there are exceptions such as libel, slander, threats, et cetera. The spirit of free speech is such that if you allow for people to share their ideas, they cannot be forcefully threatened as only the government has a right to do that. That's it. The point isn't to allow for stupid things to be said. Rather, it makes peace with this likelihood because surviving \"stupid things\" is still worth it if good ideas can shine through in the end. As everyone's probably already pointed out: unless the government is doing it, free speech has not been violated. The spirit, maybe, but the spirit isn't tangible and it's up for debate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7581.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"98euoe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: -The purpose of free speech is to allow the stupid, the vile and the dangerous to freely self identify so that we can avoid and shun them. Anything that suppresses that very public self identification process only drives such speech underground where it is harder to guard against. Lets face facts- Alex Jones is an occasionally entertaining idiot. I am convinced that a significant fraction of his fan base follows him for purely entertainment purposes. But banning him from social media platforms has only made him front page news and significantly increased his news letter subscriptions. His jackassery is still available on the internet. He has in no way \"gone away\" by de-platforming him. Suppressing - by deplatforming or shadowbanning or banning- free speech only drives it underground where it cannot be monitored -is counterproductive. I have no problem with mockery or downvoting a submission or comment to the very bottom of a conversation (there are subs where my opinion is un-welcome and no useful conversation comes from it but I simply stop wasting my time there). When power- whether it be government power or corporate power or community power- is exercised to exclude someone, anyone from a conversation, the opportunity to persuade, to convince, to educate is not just lost but deliberately thrown away.","c_root_id_A":"e4g5b7o","c_root_id_B":"e4g4i7b","created_at_utc_A":1534654260,"created_at_utc_B":1534653126,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Except we have historical examples where this was not the case. I'd say that the Nazis ideology was pretty stupid, vile, and dangerous, and it spread just fine while being broadcasted all over the country. For a less extreme example, a big reason why so many people in the US don't believe in climate change is due to the practice of giving equal time to opposing viewpoints on the news, even when one side is empirically wrong. When people kept hearing an equal number of people on the tube on either side of the issue, it created the perception that there was a sizable part of the scientific community which disagreed that climate change, which isn't true at all. Or again with the news, it's well established that when a high profile suicide or mass murder is plastered over the headlines we can expect to see copycats soon after. People can end up dead because some hateful or ignorant ideology (think Roger Eliot) is given so much attention. There IS danger in promoting some ideas. I'm not arguing that this means that speech needs to be restricted, just that bringing bad ideas out into the light doesn't always make them go away.","human_ref_B":"You are completely and utterly wrong. The purpose of free speech laws is to limit the power of the governing heirarchy to protect itself when it becomes corrupt or tyrannical. It has nothing at all to do with identifying stupid people. Censoring Alex Jones is simply another step on a slippery slope to making the principle of free speech obselete. The idea that this is going to make Alex Jones more popular is ridiculous. He's effectively been barred from the mainstream discourse. And everyone's cheering because they hate Alex Jones for whatever reason. How else was this principle going to get abrogated? Did you think it was going to start with some super hip popularity contest winner? Of course not. Everyone is has to be applauding when their freedoms are initially taken away, then when it comes time to do something really distasteful people won't even feel entitled to those freedoms because they're so used to them being set aside for convenience sake. Free speech isn't anything to do with seeing stupid people, it's about limiting the scope of activity of our elites because that is what the fundamental success and prosperity of liberal western democracies is built on. But who cares, fuck Alex Jones right, at least we can feel good about that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1134.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"9bkb5v","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Change my view thatMoney doesn't solve the poverty mindset so we should focus more on giving better education than giving more money. The system in the US is to keep people barely afloat; don't give them too much to be too entitled but just enough to not starve to death. We talk about how the poverty mindset forces people into making bad long-term decisions because they cannot plan for future needs when current needs are not met. I would argue that a poverty mindset is more damaging than a lack of money itself. For example, if you make a decent salary but lose your job you may plan differently because of your reduced income. You don't immediately start making bad decisions, you set yourself up for a new job, often going back to school, learning a new skill, etc. Now, you might say, \"but a job loss is temporary.\" True, but since the job is lost the person may be living in poverty - but their mindset probably hasn't changed. To me that says more about the mental\/emotional state of people in poverty than the actual dollars in the bank account. If I were to lose my job I wouldn't change who I am. The decisions we make as young people compound upon themselves as we get older. Educating kids about making wise decisions while they are young will set them up for a better future. Poverty is resource scarcity but does not necessarily change the mentality of the person in poverty. It goes back to education and knowing that you don't know everything; that's why we should focus on continuing to educate people more than provide them with direct resources. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e53n5nq","c_root_id_B":"e53leh2","created_at_utc_A":1535643084,"created_at_utc_B":1535641605,"score_A":19,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"While there is evidence to suggest that a \"poverty mindset\" of sorts does exist, you're mixing up cause and effect. It's been demonstrated that living in poverty can exert a \"mental tax\" on people, severely reducing their decision-making and executive functions. Basically, people generally don't get poor simply because they're in a poverty mindset. Rather, they fall into a poverty mindset **because they're poor** (and especially, if they grow up poor). It can become a vicious cycle, in which poverty fosters the mindset and the mindset perpetuates the poverty, but the initial stimulus is almost always poverty itself, not mindset. Perhaps it would be somewhat helpful to fund better financial literacy in schools, etc. But do you know what would be a much more helpful and efficient use of funds? Making sure kids don't grow up poor in the first place. I can absolutely make an argument for funding both simultaneously, but if it's a choice between one or the other, direct assistance to families is the better choice. >If I were to lose my job I wouldn't change who I am. I invite you to consider why you believe that to be necessarily the case. You may very well believe it about yourself, but until you've experienced real poverty, you can't know how you'd react. Perhaps you'd be able to fully keep your wits about you and pull yourself out of a bad situation. But it's entirely likely that you, like many others, would have difficulty focusing on balancing a checkbook or hunting for a stable job when you're not sure where your next meal will come from and you're days away from being evicted from your home.","human_ref_B":"Ok, how? I mean I agree with you, but I wonder how you propose to better educate poor children. ​ Primarily, this is the parents' job. Can't really do anything about that on a systematic scale. Secondarily, this is the school systems' job. Better education takes more money, doesn't it? Teachers' salaries, school supplies, all cost money. ​ I think you'll find that most charities don't directly give money to individuals. They instead try to fund services and programs to help elevate them. But still, all that costs money, and as a charitable individual, giving money is a way I can indirectly assist with community elevation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1479.0,"score_ratio":4.75} {"post_id":"9bkb5v","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Change my view thatMoney doesn't solve the poverty mindset so we should focus more on giving better education than giving more money. The system in the US is to keep people barely afloat; don't give them too much to be too entitled but just enough to not starve to death. We talk about how the poverty mindset forces people into making bad long-term decisions because they cannot plan for future needs when current needs are not met. I would argue that a poverty mindset is more damaging than a lack of money itself. For example, if you make a decent salary but lose your job you may plan differently because of your reduced income. You don't immediately start making bad decisions, you set yourself up for a new job, often going back to school, learning a new skill, etc. Now, you might say, \"but a job loss is temporary.\" True, but since the job is lost the person may be living in poverty - but their mindset probably hasn't changed. To me that says more about the mental\/emotional state of people in poverty than the actual dollars in the bank account. If I were to lose my job I wouldn't change who I am. The decisions we make as young people compound upon themselves as we get older. Educating kids about making wise decisions while they are young will set them up for a better future. Poverty is resource scarcity but does not necessarily change the mentality of the person in poverty. It goes back to education and knowing that you don't know everything; that's why we should focus on continuing to educate people more than provide them with direct resources. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e54dctx","c_root_id_B":"e53tn7a","created_at_utc_A":1535665566,"created_at_utc_B":1535648320,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Most of the research that has been done on the subject shows that both in the US and worldwide that the \"poverty mindset\" is a myth and that when poor people are given money directly they generally make good decisions and improve their lives. For the most part, poverty is not caused by moral or mental deficiencies, it is caused by a lack of money. ​ https:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/goatsandsoda\/2017\/08\/07\/541609649\/how-to-fix-poverty-why-not-just-give-people-money https:\/\/www.poverty-action.org\/impact\/cash-transfers-changing-debate-giving-cash-poor https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty\/2013\/12\/29\/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1\\_story.html?utm\\_term=.a40d838957f7 ​ ​","human_ref_B":"Suppose that in educating kids to make wise decisions, it is actually successful, but as a result they vote for policies you don't agree with. Do you change your view?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17246.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"9bkb5v","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Change my view thatMoney doesn't solve the poverty mindset so we should focus more on giving better education than giving more money. The system in the US is to keep people barely afloat; don't give them too much to be too entitled but just enough to not starve to death. We talk about how the poverty mindset forces people into making bad long-term decisions because they cannot plan for future needs when current needs are not met. I would argue that a poverty mindset is more damaging than a lack of money itself. For example, if you make a decent salary but lose your job you may plan differently because of your reduced income. You don't immediately start making bad decisions, you set yourself up for a new job, often going back to school, learning a new skill, etc. Now, you might say, \"but a job loss is temporary.\" True, but since the job is lost the person may be living in poverty - but their mindset probably hasn't changed. To me that says more about the mental\/emotional state of people in poverty than the actual dollars in the bank account. If I were to lose my job I wouldn't change who I am. The decisions we make as young people compound upon themselves as we get older. Educating kids about making wise decisions while they are young will set them up for a better future. Poverty is resource scarcity but does not necessarily change the mentality of the person in poverty. It goes back to education and knowing that you don't know everything; that's why we should focus on continuing to educate people more than provide them with direct resources. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e53wkpn","c_root_id_B":"e54dctx","created_at_utc_A":1535650622,"created_at_utc_B":1535665566,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think the real problem is that the way that money is given out, that there is very little incentive to work. If someone plays the game well in an expensive lefty city like SF or NYC, they could be living in what would be a $50k\/yr market rate apartment for almost free, getting free food, healthcare, and welfare payments. If they go to work making $20, even $30\/hr, they lose all that for almost no marginal gain, so why work? I think the real problem is that social safety nets are designed in a way that there is very little marginal incentive to work.","human_ref_B":"Most of the research that has been done on the subject shows that both in the US and worldwide that the \"poverty mindset\" is a myth and that when poor people are given money directly they generally make good decisions and improve their lives. For the most part, poverty is not caused by moral or mental deficiencies, it is caused by a lack of money. ​ https:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/goatsandsoda\/2017\/08\/07\/541609649\/how-to-fix-poverty-why-not-just-give-people-money https:\/\/www.poverty-action.org\/impact\/cash-transfers-changing-debate-giving-cash-poor https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty\/2013\/12\/29\/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1\\_story.html?utm\\_term=.a40d838957f7 ​ ​","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14944.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"t3v6v3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: A country's citizens either have the utility (and responsibility) to change their government, or that government is illegitimate and should be treated as such by the rest of the world. I understand that this perspective is tainted by a particularly Western bias, and it is obviously influenced by the current state of affairs in Ukraine. I was thinking about the arguments concerning how the world's response and sanctions are affecting the average Russian citizen and ultimately what responsibility they do or do not share for Putin's actions. Ultimately, that is related to the utility for change they possess. You can get into the minutiae for any individual citizen and their relative \"responsibility\" for the actions of a country and whittle any criticism down to \"nothing is ever anybody's fault\" which is a cop out. Sometimes when we \"blame\" a country, we mean it's people too. We just do. There may be some people who disagree, but when a country's citizens have ultimate say over their government, then they are responsible for that government. Take the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. There are plenty of criticisms leveled against it, and regardless of how any particular citizen may personally feel about those policies, nobody thinks that Americans are just victims of their government who shouldn't be the targets of that criticism. We have the utility to change our government and choose our representatives - our people are ultimately responsible for the actions of our country. So I could see how a country whose citizens do not have that same ability to shape their country could be seen as victims, regardless of how they personally feel about their government's actions. If they have absolutely NO say over their government, then they simply can't be blamed and are ultimately bystanders. So should the world tolerate such governments, like, at all? Is there an argument against removal of such systems of government beyond the logistical capacity to do so? Is there any argument for formally recognizing such states aside from an absolute necessity to do so?","c_root_id_A":"hyuukif","c_root_id_B":"hyurn5j","created_at_utc_A":1646098781,"created_at_utc_B":1646097390,"score_A":13,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"How many countries do you think would pass this legitimacy test?","human_ref_B":"There is an argument to be made that even in the absence of true democracy a government of any kind must have some level of consent from their people. A single person cannot run a country on their own, nor even can only the people with power run it. They have to have at least a significant minority of the country that buys into the propaganda and runs the show. You can't claim ignorance to how things work if you are the one working them. Beyond that significant minority, the fact that citizens are not actively rebelling against the dictatorship is implicit consent. Whatever dislike they have is not more than the risks of rebelling or leaving. Even China, one of the least democratic countries in the world, knows that they must maintain certain economic basics in order to keep people from revolting against them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1391.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"t3v6v3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: A country's citizens either have the utility (and responsibility) to change their government, or that government is illegitimate and should be treated as such by the rest of the world. I understand that this perspective is tainted by a particularly Western bias, and it is obviously influenced by the current state of affairs in Ukraine. I was thinking about the arguments concerning how the world's response and sanctions are affecting the average Russian citizen and ultimately what responsibility they do or do not share for Putin's actions. Ultimately, that is related to the utility for change they possess. You can get into the minutiae for any individual citizen and their relative \"responsibility\" for the actions of a country and whittle any criticism down to \"nothing is ever anybody's fault\" which is a cop out. Sometimes when we \"blame\" a country, we mean it's people too. We just do. There may be some people who disagree, but when a country's citizens have ultimate say over their government, then they are responsible for that government. Take the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. There are plenty of criticisms leveled against it, and regardless of how any particular citizen may personally feel about those policies, nobody thinks that Americans are just victims of their government who shouldn't be the targets of that criticism. We have the utility to change our government and choose our representatives - our people are ultimately responsible for the actions of our country. So I could see how a country whose citizens do not have that same ability to shape their country could be seen as victims, regardless of how they personally feel about their government's actions. If they have absolutely NO say over their government, then they simply can't be blamed and are ultimately bystanders. So should the world tolerate such governments, like, at all? Is there an argument against removal of such systems of government beyond the logistical capacity to do so? Is there any argument for formally recognizing such states aside from an absolute necessity to do so?","c_root_id_A":"hyuukif","c_root_id_B":"hyuttu4","created_at_utc_A":1646098781,"created_at_utc_B":1646098430,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"How many countries do you think would pass this legitimacy test?","human_ref_B":"The question is how do you determine this? If a country has elections but the same person keeps getting reelected, how do you prove he isn't just real popular? How should votes be counted? Realistically, the answer will depend on whether they have oil.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":351.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"t3v6v3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: A country's citizens either have the utility (and responsibility) to change their government, or that government is illegitimate and should be treated as such by the rest of the world. I understand that this perspective is tainted by a particularly Western bias, and it is obviously influenced by the current state of affairs in Ukraine. I was thinking about the arguments concerning how the world's response and sanctions are affecting the average Russian citizen and ultimately what responsibility they do or do not share for Putin's actions. Ultimately, that is related to the utility for change they possess. You can get into the minutiae for any individual citizen and their relative \"responsibility\" for the actions of a country and whittle any criticism down to \"nothing is ever anybody's fault\" which is a cop out. Sometimes when we \"blame\" a country, we mean it's people too. We just do. There may be some people who disagree, but when a country's citizens have ultimate say over their government, then they are responsible for that government. Take the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. There are plenty of criticisms leveled against it, and regardless of how any particular citizen may personally feel about those policies, nobody thinks that Americans are just victims of their government who shouldn't be the targets of that criticism. We have the utility to change our government and choose our representatives - our people are ultimately responsible for the actions of our country. So I could see how a country whose citizens do not have that same ability to shape their country could be seen as victims, regardless of how they personally feel about their government's actions. If they have absolutely NO say over their government, then they simply can't be blamed and are ultimately bystanders. So should the world tolerate such governments, like, at all? Is there an argument against removal of such systems of government beyond the logistical capacity to do so? Is there any argument for formally recognizing such states aside from an absolute necessity to do so?","c_root_id_A":"hyv120h","c_root_id_B":"hyuwha5","created_at_utc_A":1646101745,"created_at_utc_B":1646099648,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This is a very narrow view of legitimacy of government and western centric. You need to realize that democracy, while a great system for the west, doesn't always work for all countries. The founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, famously said that democracy alone is not the condition for success. One could argue that a government's legitimacy lies in whether it's improving the living conditions of its citizens, more specifically, the bottom half of the population. This would explain the overwhelming support of CCP amongst the populace in China despite the fact that the Chinese people cannot vote out the CCP. At the end of the day, the legitimacy of a government is determined by the people of that country, not by anyone else.","human_ref_B":"A common and I think effective challenge to this view is to consider this series of events and their result: * Citizens want a non-democratic form of government. * Citizens use democracy within its rules to achieve this. * A country has a non-democratic form of government that is \"illegitimate\" in spite of their choosing and bringing it about *through democratic government*. What would you do about a country in which this occurred? They may have a benevolent aristocracy that they're quite happy with and chose for themselves, does that really warrant a declaration of illegitimacy? Citizens may be able to change a government, but simply not want to. How do we demonstrate the negative - that a government *can't* be changed? We can observe methods of resisting change, but of course if a country's government adapts to resist pushes for change ... this itself is a way of changing. It is also just far too easy as a justification for aggression against \"illegitimate\" governments, since it can be trivial to characterize countries as non-democratic since even most formal democracies are still relatively oligarchical and something more like hybrids(the U.S. obviously falls under that category), or even push them towards a non-democratic state for the sake of future aggression against them for not being democratic enough. It needs to be understood that democracy to an extent is often nothing other than rule by sophistry unless certain conditions are met. The best persuaders(or those who pay or control them) will win elections provided the elections are relatively clean of other interference, unless there is a citizenship that is not susceptible to sophistry(rare to non-existent). Democratic forms of government have pros and cons, and they also rely on a country being educated enough to rely on the citizenry to make political decisions. Not every country is ready for democracy, and pushing it onto countries can do more harm than good.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2097.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"t3v6v3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: A country's citizens either have the utility (and responsibility) to change their government, or that government is illegitimate and should be treated as such by the rest of the world. I understand that this perspective is tainted by a particularly Western bias, and it is obviously influenced by the current state of affairs in Ukraine. I was thinking about the arguments concerning how the world's response and sanctions are affecting the average Russian citizen and ultimately what responsibility they do or do not share for Putin's actions. Ultimately, that is related to the utility for change they possess. You can get into the minutiae for any individual citizen and their relative \"responsibility\" for the actions of a country and whittle any criticism down to \"nothing is ever anybody's fault\" which is a cop out. Sometimes when we \"blame\" a country, we mean it's people too. We just do. There may be some people who disagree, but when a country's citizens have ultimate say over their government, then they are responsible for that government. Take the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. There are plenty of criticisms leveled against it, and regardless of how any particular citizen may personally feel about those policies, nobody thinks that Americans are just victims of their government who shouldn't be the targets of that criticism. We have the utility to change our government and choose our representatives - our people are ultimately responsible for the actions of our country. So I could see how a country whose citizens do not have that same ability to shape their country could be seen as victims, regardless of how they personally feel about their government's actions. If they have absolutely NO say over their government, then they simply can't be blamed and are ultimately bystanders. So should the world tolerate such governments, like, at all? Is there an argument against removal of such systems of government beyond the logistical capacity to do so? Is there any argument for formally recognizing such states aside from an absolute necessity to do so?","c_root_id_A":"hyuxr0c","c_root_id_B":"hyv120h","created_at_utc_A":1646100230,"created_at_utc_B":1646101745,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"If this is the case then no government is legitimate and no government ever has been. Which, ya, I agree. But I don't think that's the argument you were making.","human_ref_B":"This is a very narrow view of legitimacy of government and western centric. You need to realize that democracy, while a great system for the west, doesn't always work for all countries. The founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, famously said that democracy alone is not the condition for success. One could argue that a government's legitimacy lies in whether it's improving the living conditions of its citizens, more specifically, the bottom half of the population. This would explain the overwhelming support of CCP amongst the populace in China despite the fact that the Chinese people cannot vote out the CCP. At the end of the day, the legitimacy of a government is determined by the people of that country, not by anyone else.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1515.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"t3v6v3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: A country's citizens either have the utility (and responsibility) to change their government, or that government is illegitimate and should be treated as such by the rest of the world. I understand that this perspective is tainted by a particularly Western bias, and it is obviously influenced by the current state of affairs in Ukraine. I was thinking about the arguments concerning how the world's response and sanctions are affecting the average Russian citizen and ultimately what responsibility they do or do not share for Putin's actions. Ultimately, that is related to the utility for change they possess. You can get into the minutiae for any individual citizen and their relative \"responsibility\" for the actions of a country and whittle any criticism down to \"nothing is ever anybody's fault\" which is a cop out. Sometimes when we \"blame\" a country, we mean it's people too. We just do. There may be some people who disagree, but when a country's citizens have ultimate say over their government, then they are responsible for that government. Take the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. There are plenty of criticisms leveled against it, and regardless of how any particular citizen may personally feel about those policies, nobody thinks that Americans are just victims of their government who shouldn't be the targets of that criticism. We have the utility to change our government and choose our representatives - our people are ultimately responsible for the actions of our country. So I could see how a country whose citizens do not have that same ability to shape their country could be seen as victims, regardless of how they personally feel about their government's actions. If they have absolutely NO say over their government, then they simply can't be blamed and are ultimately bystanders. So should the world tolerate such governments, like, at all? Is there an argument against removal of such systems of government beyond the logistical capacity to do so? Is there any argument for formally recognizing such states aside from an absolute necessity to do so?","c_root_id_A":"hyv120h","c_root_id_B":"hyuttu4","created_at_utc_A":1646101745,"created_at_utc_B":1646098430,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This is a very narrow view of legitimacy of government and western centric. You need to realize that democracy, while a great system for the west, doesn't always work for all countries. The founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, famously said that democracy alone is not the condition for success. One could argue that a government's legitimacy lies in whether it's improving the living conditions of its citizens, more specifically, the bottom half of the population. This would explain the overwhelming support of CCP amongst the populace in China despite the fact that the Chinese people cannot vote out the CCP. At the end of the day, the legitimacy of a government is determined by the people of that country, not by anyone else.","human_ref_B":"The question is how do you determine this? If a country has elections but the same person keeps getting reelected, how do you prove he isn't just real popular? How should votes be counted? Realistically, the answer will depend on whether they have oil.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3315.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"t3v6v3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: A country's citizens either have the utility (and responsibility) to change their government, or that government is illegitimate and should be treated as such by the rest of the world. I understand that this perspective is tainted by a particularly Western bias, and it is obviously influenced by the current state of affairs in Ukraine. I was thinking about the arguments concerning how the world's response and sanctions are affecting the average Russian citizen and ultimately what responsibility they do or do not share for Putin's actions. Ultimately, that is related to the utility for change they possess. You can get into the minutiae for any individual citizen and their relative \"responsibility\" for the actions of a country and whittle any criticism down to \"nothing is ever anybody's fault\" which is a cop out. Sometimes when we \"blame\" a country, we mean it's people too. We just do. There may be some people who disagree, but when a country's citizens have ultimate say over their government, then they are responsible for that government. Take the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. There are plenty of criticisms leveled against it, and regardless of how any particular citizen may personally feel about those policies, nobody thinks that Americans are just victims of their government who shouldn't be the targets of that criticism. We have the utility to change our government and choose our representatives - our people are ultimately responsible for the actions of our country. So I could see how a country whose citizens do not have that same ability to shape their country could be seen as victims, regardless of how they personally feel about their government's actions. If they have absolutely NO say over their government, then they simply can't be blamed and are ultimately bystanders. So should the world tolerate such governments, like, at all? Is there an argument against removal of such systems of government beyond the logistical capacity to do so? Is there any argument for formally recognizing such states aside from an absolute necessity to do so?","c_root_id_A":"hyv120h","c_root_id_B":"hyuzibg","created_at_utc_A":1646101745,"created_at_utc_B":1646101032,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This is a very narrow view of legitimacy of government and western centric. You need to realize that democracy, while a great system for the west, doesn't always work for all countries. The founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, famously said that democracy alone is not the condition for success. One could argue that a government's legitimacy lies in whether it's improving the living conditions of its citizens, more specifically, the bottom half of the population. This would explain the overwhelming support of CCP amongst the populace in China despite the fact that the Chinese people cannot vote out the CCP. At the end of the day, the legitimacy of a government is determined by the people of that country, not by anyone else.","human_ref_B":"So you're saying that Americans deserved 9\/11? If they are responsible for the governments foreign policy in the middle east. Or does responsibility just mean in some toothless UN diplomatic \"recognition\"?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":713.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"t3v6v3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: A country's citizens either have the utility (and responsibility) to change their government, or that government is illegitimate and should be treated as such by the rest of the world. I understand that this perspective is tainted by a particularly Western bias, and it is obviously influenced by the current state of affairs in Ukraine. I was thinking about the arguments concerning how the world's response and sanctions are affecting the average Russian citizen and ultimately what responsibility they do or do not share for Putin's actions. Ultimately, that is related to the utility for change they possess. You can get into the minutiae for any individual citizen and their relative \"responsibility\" for the actions of a country and whittle any criticism down to \"nothing is ever anybody's fault\" which is a cop out. Sometimes when we \"blame\" a country, we mean it's people too. We just do. There may be some people who disagree, but when a country's citizens have ultimate say over their government, then they are responsible for that government. Take the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. There are plenty of criticisms leveled against it, and regardless of how any particular citizen may personally feel about those policies, nobody thinks that Americans are just victims of their government who shouldn't be the targets of that criticism. We have the utility to change our government and choose our representatives - our people are ultimately responsible for the actions of our country. So I could see how a country whose citizens do not have that same ability to shape their country could be seen as victims, regardless of how they personally feel about their government's actions. If they have absolutely NO say over their government, then they simply can't be blamed and are ultimately bystanders. So should the world tolerate such governments, like, at all? Is there an argument against removal of such systems of government beyond the logistical capacity to do so? Is there any argument for formally recognizing such states aside from an absolute necessity to do so?","c_root_id_A":"hyv120h","c_root_id_B":"hyuzr6d","created_at_utc_A":1646101745,"created_at_utc_B":1646101144,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This is a very narrow view of legitimacy of government and western centric. You need to realize that democracy, while a great system for the west, doesn't always work for all countries. The founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, famously said that democracy alone is not the condition for success. One could argue that a government's legitimacy lies in whether it's improving the living conditions of its citizens, more specifically, the bottom half of the population. This would explain the overwhelming support of CCP amongst the populace in China despite the fact that the Chinese people cannot vote out the CCP. At the end of the day, the legitimacy of a government is determined by the people of that country, not by anyone else.","human_ref_B":"Are you speaking of a type of government that has built in mechanisms for peaceful change of governance only? Because, a violent peasant (or other common person) uprising against an oppressive regime is always on the table if the population *really* wants it enough. Otherwise, legitimacy is not historically derived solely from the will of the governed when it comes to geopolitics. Sometimes the world has to recognize, as a practical matter, that a brutal and even criminal cabal is in charge of a particular nation and act accordingly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":601.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"t3v6v3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: A country's citizens either have the utility (and responsibility) to change their government, or that government is illegitimate and should be treated as such by the rest of the world. I understand that this perspective is tainted by a particularly Western bias, and it is obviously influenced by the current state of affairs in Ukraine. I was thinking about the arguments concerning how the world's response and sanctions are affecting the average Russian citizen and ultimately what responsibility they do or do not share for Putin's actions. Ultimately, that is related to the utility for change they possess. You can get into the minutiae for any individual citizen and their relative \"responsibility\" for the actions of a country and whittle any criticism down to \"nothing is ever anybody's fault\" which is a cop out. Sometimes when we \"blame\" a country, we mean it's people too. We just do. There may be some people who disagree, but when a country's citizens have ultimate say over their government, then they are responsible for that government. Take the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. There are plenty of criticisms leveled against it, and regardless of how any particular citizen may personally feel about those policies, nobody thinks that Americans are just victims of their government who shouldn't be the targets of that criticism. We have the utility to change our government and choose our representatives - our people are ultimately responsible for the actions of our country. So I could see how a country whose citizens do not have that same ability to shape their country could be seen as victims, regardless of how they personally feel about their government's actions. If they have absolutely NO say over their government, then they simply can't be blamed and are ultimately bystanders. So should the world tolerate such governments, like, at all? Is there an argument against removal of such systems of government beyond the logistical capacity to do so? Is there any argument for formally recognizing such states aside from an absolute necessity to do so?","c_root_id_A":"hyuttu4","c_root_id_B":"hyuwha5","created_at_utc_A":1646098430,"created_at_utc_B":1646099648,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The question is how do you determine this? If a country has elections but the same person keeps getting reelected, how do you prove he isn't just real popular? How should votes be counted? Realistically, the answer will depend on whether they have oil.","human_ref_B":"A common and I think effective challenge to this view is to consider this series of events and their result: * Citizens want a non-democratic form of government. * Citizens use democracy within its rules to achieve this. * A country has a non-democratic form of government that is \"illegitimate\" in spite of their choosing and bringing it about *through democratic government*. What would you do about a country in which this occurred? They may have a benevolent aristocracy that they're quite happy with and chose for themselves, does that really warrant a declaration of illegitimacy? Citizens may be able to change a government, but simply not want to. How do we demonstrate the negative - that a government *can't* be changed? We can observe methods of resisting change, but of course if a country's government adapts to resist pushes for change ... this itself is a way of changing. It is also just far too easy as a justification for aggression against \"illegitimate\" governments, since it can be trivial to characterize countries as non-democratic since even most formal democracies are still relatively oligarchical and something more like hybrids(the U.S. obviously falls under that category), or even push them towards a non-democratic state for the sake of future aggression against them for not being democratic enough. It needs to be understood that democracy to an extent is often nothing other than rule by sophistry unless certain conditions are met. The best persuaders(or those who pay or control them) will win elections provided the elections are relatively clean of other interference, unless there is a citizenship that is not susceptible to sophistry(rare to non-existent). Democratic forms of government have pros and cons, and they also rely on a country being educated enough to rely on the citizenry to make political decisions. Not every country is ready for democracy, and pushing it onto countries can do more harm than good.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1218.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"t3v6v3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: A country's citizens either have the utility (and responsibility) to change their government, or that government is illegitimate and should be treated as such by the rest of the world. I understand that this perspective is tainted by a particularly Western bias, and it is obviously influenced by the current state of affairs in Ukraine. I was thinking about the arguments concerning how the world's response and sanctions are affecting the average Russian citizen and ultimately what responsibility they do or do not share for Putin's actions. Ultimately, that is related to the utility for change they possess. You can get into the minutiae for any individual citizen and their relative \"responsibility\" for the actions of a country and whittle any criticism down to \"nothing is ever anybody's fault\" which is a cop out. Sometimes when we \"blame\" a country, we mean it's people too. We just do. There may be some people who disagree, but when a country's citizens have ultimate say over their government, then they are responsible for that government. Take the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. There are plenty of criticisms leveled against it, and regardless of how any particular citizen may personally feel about those policies, nobody thinks that Americans are just victims of their government who shouldn't be the targets of that criticism. We have the utility to change our government and choose our representatives - our people are ultimately responsible for the actions of our country. So I could see how a country whose citizens do not have that same ability to shape their country could be seen as victims, regardless of how they personally feel about their government's actions. If they have absolutely NO say over their government, then they simply can't be blamed and are ultimately bystanders. So should the world tolerate such governments, like, at all? Is there an argument against removal of such systems of government beyond the logistical capacity to do so? Is there any argument for formally recognizing such states aside from an absolute necessity to do so?","c_root_id_A":"hyuxr0c","c_root_id_B":"hyuttu4","created_at_utc_A":1646100230,"created_at_utc_B":1646098430,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If this is the case then no government is legitimate and no government ever has been. Which, ya, I agree. But I don't think that's the argument you were making.","human_ref_B":"The question is how do you determine this? If a country has elections but the same person keeps getting reelected, how do you prove he isn't just real popular? How should votes be counted? Realistically, the answer will depend on whether they have oil.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1800.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"pyzxpq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: people who cheat - regardless of the circumstance - are selfish I feel important to first preface that I have never personally been cheated on myself. I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? I am truly open to seeing a less black and white view on this. I have never personally been cheated on myself. I\u2019ve just always personally believed that\u2019s like \u2014unforgivable. How can you ever trust them again? (respectfully excluding relationships that have any form of abuse going on - I understand when you\u2019re in an abusive relationship, that changes the circumstances a bit)","c_root_id_A":"hexw0ss","c_root_id_B":"hexwktq","created_at_utc_A":1633063921,"created_at_utc_B":1633064304,"score_A":15,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":">I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? Relationships ebb and flow. If you're married and\/or have children, a house\/shared assets, etc. Then breaking off a relationship before you know it's what you want to do can be far more devastating to your partner than actually finding out it's what you want. There was an annecdote i read here on reddit a while back. A couple, obstensibly happily married, and the man files for divorce out of the blue. Apparently he wasnt unhappy, but there was some woman in his office that he was flirting with\/interested in. Before he moved forward, he wanted to file for a divorce. I think this came out in marriage counseling, and he said something like \"i didn't want to cheat, i thought this was the right thing to do.\" Divorce under those circumstances is such an absolute finality, for both parties. Let's evaluate the alternative. One spouse is in a fairly unhappy marriage, a coworker catches their eye and they flirt a bit. They have an affair. There are 3 possible outcomes. The spouse realizes that this person isnt really what he\/she wants, perhaps gains some appreciation for their current spouse, and breaks it off before their spouse finds out. The spouse realizes that the person is what he\/she wants, or at least helps them realize they are in an unhappy marriage, and she\/he then files for divorce. The spouse gets caught, at which point, they have to decide whether they want to stay married, but they are at the mercy of their spouse. Situation 2 and 3 are both painful. But arguably less painful than just leaving for the possibility of a romantic relationship. It's a weird psychological dilema. Yeah, getting cheated on sucks, but being preemptively cast aside for the *possibility* of a romantic relationship with someone else is kind of worse (assuming it's an established, serious long term relationship). Everything you've done together and all your shared experiences are discarded on a whim.","human_ref_B":"Just FYI, you might want to give deltas to everyone who's brought up a situation where you agree it doesn't qualify as selfish. Not a huge deal but it's part of how the subreddit's supposed to function.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":383.0,"score_ratio":2.8} {"post_id":"pyzxpq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: people who cheat - regardless of the circumstance - are selfish I feel important to first preface that I have never personally been cheated on myself. I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? I am truly open to seeing a less black and white view on this. I have never personally been cheated on myself. I\u2019ve just always personally believed that\u2019s like \u2014unforgivable. How can you ever trust them again? (respectfully excluding relationships that have any form of abuse going on - I understand when you\u2019re in an abusive relationship, that changes the circumstances a bit)","c_root_id_A":"hexwktq","c_root_id_B":"hexrfqo","created_at_utc_A":1633064304,"created_at_utc_B":1633061022,"score_A":42,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Just FYI, you might want to give deltas to everyone who's brought up a situation where you agree it doesn't qualify as selfish. Not a huge deal but it's part of how the subreddit's supposed to function.","human_ref_B":"Your partner becomes ill in a way that prevents you from having sex I acknowledge the examples I am about to provide are extreme: Dementia Coma Erectile Disfunction Severe depression Partner unequivocally says they are done with sex. You love your partner. You don\u2019t want to leave them. You don\u2019t want to destroy the life you have. You know if you ask for permission, it would make them feel \u201cless\u201d But you still have a need to get off. Can you sit down with your spouse who has Alzheimer\u2019s and doesn\u2019t remember you but does introduce you to their special friend, and ask their permission?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3282.0,"score_ratio":3.8181818182} {"post_id":"pyzxpq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: people who cheat - regardless of the circumstance - are selfish I feel important to first preface that I have never personally been cheated on myself. I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? I am truly open to seeing a less black and white view on this. I have never personally been cheated on myself. I\u2019ve just always personally believed that\u2019s like \u2014unforgivable. How can you ever trust them again? (respectfully excluding relationships that have any form of abuse going on - I understand when you\u2019re in an abusive relationship, that changes the circumstances a bit)","c_root_id_A":"hexwktq","c_root_id_B":"hexrq6u","created_at_utc_A":1633064304,"created_at_utc_B":1633061187,"score_A":42,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Just FYI, you might want to give deltas to everyone who's brought up a situation where you agree it doesn't qualify as selfish. Not a huge deal but it's part of how the subreddit's supposed to function.","human_ref_B":"What if you are in serious debt, and your wife starts an onlyfans and secretly starts escorting to help pay it off? In her head, she is doing it for you. She wants you to keep your lifestyle and live the life she knows you deserve, but she knows you would never approve of her methods so she keeps it a secret. That way your finances are in order, and you wont look at her any differently ( as you won\u2019t know). This is a short sighted mindset, but not selfish.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3117.0,"score_ratio":8.4} {"post_id":"pyzxpq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: people who cheat - regardless of the circumstance - are selfish I feel important to first preface that I have never personally been cheated on myself. I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? I am truly open to seeing a less black and white view on this. I have never personally been cheated on myself. I\u2019ve just always personally believed that\u2019s like \u2014unforgivable. How can you ever trust them again? (respectfully excluding relationships that have any form of abuse going on - I understand when you\u2019re in an abusive relationship, that changes the circumstances a bit)","c_root_id_A":"hexrfqo","c_root_id_B":"hexw0ss","created_at_utc_A":1633061022,"created_at_utc_B":1633063921,"score_A":11,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Your partner becomes ill in a way that prevents you from having sex I acknowledge the examples I am about to provide are extreme: Dementia Coma Erectile Disfunction Severe depression Partner unequivocally says they are done with sex. You love your partner. You don\u2019t want to leave them. You don\u2019t want to destroy the life you have. You know if you ask for permission, it would make them feel \u201cless\u201d But you still have a need to get off. Can you sit down with your spouse who has Alzheimer\u2019s and doesn\u2019t remember you but does introduce you to their special friend, and ask their permission?","human_ref_B":">I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? Relationships ebb and flow. If you're married and\/or have children, a house\/shared assets, etc. Then breaking off a relationship before you know it's what you want to do can be far more devastating to your partner than actually finding out it's what you want. There was an annecdote i read here on reddit a while back. A couple, obstensibly happily married, and the man files for divorce out of the blue. Apparently he wasnt unhappy, but there was some woman in his office that he was flirting with\/interested in. Before he moved forward, he wanted to file for a divorce. I think this came out in marriage counseling, and he said something like \"i didn't want to cheat, i thought this was the right thing to do.\" Divorce under those circumstances is such an absolute finality, for both parties. Let's evaluate the alternative. One spouse is in a fairly unhappy marriage, a coworker catches their eye and they flirt a bit. They have an affair. There are 3 possible outcomes. The spouse realizes that this person isnt really what he\/she wants, perhaps gains some appreciation for their current spouse, and breaks it off before their spouse finds out. The spouse realizes that the person is what he\/she wants, or at least helps them realize they are in an unhappy marriage, and she\/he then files for divorce. The spouse gets caught, at which point, they have to decide whether they want to stay married, but they are at the mercy of their spouse. Situation 2 and 3 are both painful. But arguably less painful than just leaving for the possibility of a romantic relationship. It's a weird psychological dilema. Yeah, getting cheated on sucks, but being preemptively cast aside for the *possibility* of a romantic relationship with someone else is kind of worse (assuming it's an established, serious long term relationship). Everything you've done together and all your shared experiences are discarded on a whim.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2899.0,"score_ratio":1.3636363636} {"post_id":"pyzxpq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: people who cheat - regardless of the circumstance - are selfish I feel important to first preface that I have never personally been cheated on myself. I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? I am truly open to seeing a less black and white view on this. I have never personally been cheated on myself. I\u2019ve just always personally believed that\u2019s like \u2014unforgivable. How can you ever trust them again? (respectfully excluding relationships that have any form of abuse going on - I understand when you\u2019re in an abusive relationship, that changes the circumstances a bit)","c_root_id_A":"hexrq6u","c_root_id_B":"hexw0ss","created_at_utc_A":1633061187,"created_at_utc_B":1633063921,"score_A":5,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"What if you are in serious debt, and your wife starts an onlyfans and secretly starts escorting to help pay it off? In her head, she is doing it for you. She wants you to keep your lifestyle and live the life she knows you deserve, but she knows you would never approve of her methods so she keeps it a secret. That way your finances are in order, and you wont look at her any differently ( as you won\u2019t know). This is a short sighted mindset, but not selfish.","human_ref_B":">I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? Relationships ebb and flow. If you're married and\/or have children, a house\/shared assets, etc. Then breaking off a relationship before you know it's what you want to do can be far more devastating to your partner than actually finding out it's what you want. There was an annecdote i read here on reddit a while back. A couple, obstensibly happily married, and the man files for divorce out of the blue. Apparently he wasnt unhappy, but there was some woman in his office that he was flirting with\/interested in. Before he moved forward, he wanted to file for a divorce. I think this came out in marriage counseling, and he said something like \"i didn't want to cheat, i thought this was the right thing to do.\" Divorce under those circumstances is such an absolute finality, for both parties. Let's evaluate the alternative. One spouse is in a fairly unhappy marriage, a coworker catches their eye and they flirt a bit. They have an affair. There are 3 possible outcomes. The spouse realizes that this person isnt really what he\/she wants, perhaps gains some appreciation for their current spouse, and breaks it off before their spouse finds out. The spouse realizes that the person is what he\/she wants, or at least helps them realize they are in an unhappy marriage, and she\/he then files for divorce. The spouse gets caught, at which point, they have to decide whether they want to stay married, but they are at the mercy of their spouse. Situation 2 and 3 are both painful. But arguably less painful than just leaving for the possibility of a romantic relationship. It's a weird psychological dilema. Yeah, getting cheated on sucks, but being preemptively cast aside for the *possibility* of a romantic relationship with someone else is kind of worse (assuming it's an established, serious long term relationship). Everything you've done together and all your shared experiences are discarded on a whim.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2734.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"pyzxpq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: people who cheat - regardless of the circumstance - are selfish I feel important to first preface that I have never personally been cheated on myself. I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? I am truly open to seeing a less black and white view on this. I have never personally been cheated on myself. I\u2019ve just always personally believed that\u2019s like \u2014unforgivable. How can you ever trust them again? (respectfully excluding relationships that have any form of abuse going on - I understand when you\u2019re in an abusive relationship, that changes the circumstances a bit)","c_root_id_A":"heybekf","c_root_id_B":"hey6ph6","created_at_utc_A":1633076392,"created_at_utc_B":1633072144,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"People forget a reason people also cheat: they hate themselves and sabotage the relationship on purpose as they dont feel they deserve love. This is not conscious at the time. Another reason is drugs and alcohol, they can do some terrible things to be people. I cheated once for some of the reasons I describe and I never stopped hating myself even years later and my self esteem or mental health never fully recovered. Why did I do it then? Well because i hated myself. I lost the love of my life and I hurt him so badly. Also, some people cannot leave a relationship due to fear, financial reasons or kids. It is way too complicated to ever view it in black and white.","human_ref_B":"Not all are selfish. Some are addicted and others are impulsive. None of these things makes cheating acceptable, but there are different characteristics that cause it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4248.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"pyzxpq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: people who cheat - regardless of the circumstance - are selfish I feel important to first preface that I have never personally been cheated on myself. I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? I am truly open to seeing a less black and white view on this. I have never personally been cheated on myself. I\u2019ve just always personally believed that\u2019s like \u2014unforgivable. How can you ever trust them again? (respectfully excluding relationships that have any form of abuse going on - I understand when you\u2019re in an abusive relationship, that changes the circumstances a bit)","c_root_id_A":"hexrq6u","c_root_id_B":"heybekf","created_at_utc_A":1633061187,"created_at_utc_B":1633076392,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"What if you are in serious debt, and your wife starts an onlyfans and secretly starts escorting to help pay it off? In her head, she is doing it for you. She wants you to keep your lifestyle and live the life she knows you deserve, but she knows you would never approve of her methods so she keeps it a secret. That way your finances are in order, and you wont look at her any differently ( as you won\u2019t know). This is a short sighted mindset, but not selfish.","human_ref_B":"People forget a reason people also cheat: they hate themselves and sabotage the relationship on purpose as they dont feel they deserve love. This is not conscious at the time. Another reason is drugs and alcohol, they can do some terrible things to be people. I cheated once for some of the reasons I describe and I never stopped hating myself even years later and my self esteem or mental health never fully recovered. Why did I do it then? Well because i hated myself. I lost the love of my life and I hurt him so badly. Also, some people cannot leave a relationship due to fear, financial reasons or kids. It is way too complicated to ever view it in black and white.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15205.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"pyzxpq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"CMV: people who cheat - regardless of the circumstance - are selfish I feel important to first preface that I have never personally been cheated on myself. I just don\u2019t understand why people don\u2019t have the courtesy to simply tell someone it\u2019s not working out, or end things before they move on to other relationships. It makes sense to me that that would be appropriate. Is it because we cannot have difficult conversations? Why can\u2019t we just be honest? I am truly open to seeing a less black and white view on this. I have never personally been cheated on myself. I\u2019ve just always personally believed that\u2019s like \u2014unforgivable. How can you ever trust them again? (respectfully excluding relationships that have any form of abuse going on - I understand when you\u2019re in an abusive relationship, that changes the circumstances a bit)","c_root_id_A":"hey6rem","c_root_id_B":"heybekf","created_at_utc_A":1633072189,"created_at_utc_B":1633076392,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Dude, you need to give some deltas out","human_ref_B":"People forget a reason people also cheat: they hate themselves and sabotage the relationship on purpose as they dont feel they deserve love. This is not conscious at the time. Another reason is drugs and alcohol, they can do some terrible things to be people. I cheated once for some of the reasons I describe and I never stopped hating myself even years later and my self esteem or mental health never fully recovered. Why did I do it then? Well because i hated myself. I lost the love of my life and I hurt him so badly. Also, some people cannot leave a relationship due to fear, financial reasons or kids. It is way too complicated to ever view it in black and white.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4203.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"4lg5cf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Change my view thatIt is hypocritical to both be against \"political correctness\" while simultaneously promoting the notion of \"polite company\". I have come across people who are against political correctness. They believe that free speech means that you have the right to be offended, and that one must deal with such offense. At the same time, they promote the notion of polite company. They say that one should not speak of matters of politics at the dinner table because it may lead to offending someone and that such matters are best left for different places and times. That seems incredibly hypcritical to me. If you are against political correctness and the notion of safe spaces, then you should be 100% okay with talking about finances, politics, and religion at the dinner table. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d3n0s13","c_root_id_B":"d3n1bq1","created_at_utc_A":1464449571,"created_at_utc_B":1464450601,"score_A":7,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"There is a difference in those two things. You can be politely non-PC without interfering with a social gathering. Discussing subjects like politics and religion can very quickly lead to a break down in civility and ruin the evening. Often times, people discussing these subjects are not seeking social discourse as much as a soapbox to preach from. People are not usually open to changing their views on these subjects and will defend themselves accordingly. As such, they aren't really good things to discuss at social events with mixed company. Do you want to have a good time, or are you looking to argue with people?","human_ref_B":"You have the right to be an asshole. Does that mean one ought to be an asshole? If the goal is to have a pleasant evening meal with family and friends, then how is that served by trying to start an argument with people who'd rather not? And of course, you can certainly still start one, and you'll offend people. But now everyone thinks you're an asshole for disturbing the peace of the meal. I don't see how these two are contradictory.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1030.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"qydsho","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: United States has the highest level of freedom of speech in the world Most would argue that majority of democratic states have a certain level on freedom of speech, yet under the first amendment, only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right. The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. I'm open to changing my view if someone can show me concrete examples that prove otherwise, as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth. Also, I'm only looking at internationally recognized sovereign nations, so \"countries\" like Liberland do not apply. Also, I'm not arguing if the level of freedom of speech in United States is a good thing or not, I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world.","c_root_id_A":"hlfc328","c_root_id_B":"hlfboxu","created_at_utc_A":1637439960,"created_at_utc_B":1637439782,"score_A":54,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Reporters without Boarders puts out a yearly freedom of speech index for all countries in the world. The US is currently 44th. Their rationale: >As with any patient, however, while the most obvious symptoms of an ailing democracy may have cleared up, many chronic, underlying conditions -- from the disappearance of local news to the ongoing and widespread distrust of mainstream media -- remain. In fact, the situation worsened considerably during President Donald J. Trump\u2019s final year in-office, which saw nearly 400 journalists assaulted and more than 130 detained -- unprecedented numbers according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker (an RSF partner organisation). Many of 2020\u2019s attacks and arrests of members of the media took place as they tried to cover the nationwide protests against systemic racism and police brutality towards people of color. Trump himself vilified bonafide news outfits as \u201cfake news\u201d and qualified award-winning journalists as the \u201cenemy of the people,\u201d feeding the the type of threatening behavior, including violence and the destruction of equipment, that journalists faced during the uprising against the US Capitol Building on 6 January 2021. As dozens of alleged insurrectionists face serious jail time for federal crimes, the erosion of trust in the American media and unchecked conspiracy theories that continue to flourish online will require a concerted effort by all - the public sector and private companies alike - to ensure that press freedom in the US runs more than just skin deep. We are certainly better than some, but when our self-elected leader was openly attacking journalists we have a long way to go.","human_ref_B":"Would you call things like SLAPP suits an abridgement on free speech? Our civil court system can be so difficult and expensive just being sued is a major burden whether it has merit or not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":178.0,"score_ratio":4.9090909091} {"post_id":"qydsho","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: United States has the highest level of freedom of speech in the world Most would argue that majority of democratic states have a certain level on freedom of speech, yet under the first amendment, only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right. The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. I'm open to changing my view if someone can show me concrete examples that prove otherwise, as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth. Also, I'm only looking at internationally recognized sovereign nations, so \"countries\" like Liberland do not apply. Also, I'm not arguing if the level of freedom of speech in United States is a good thing or not, I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world.","c_root_id_A":"hlfbr3y","c_root_id_B":"hlfc328","created_at_utc_A":1637439809,"created_at_utc_B":1637439960,"score_A":3,"score_B":54,"human_ref_A":"Would a country where you can say anything including direct incitement of violence be freer?","human_ref_B":"Reporters without Boarders puts out a yearly freedom of speech index for all countries in the world. The US is currently 44th. Their rationale: >As with any patient, however, while the most obvious symptoms of an ailing democracy may have cleared up, many chronic, underlying conditions -- from the disappearance of local news to the ongoing and widespread distrust of mainstream media -- remain. In fact, the situation worsened considerably during President Donald J. Trump\u2019s final year in-office, which saw nearly 400 journalists assaulted and more than 130 detained -- unprecedented numbers according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker (an RSF partner organisation). Many of 2020\u2019s attacks and arrests of members of the media took place as they tried to cover the nationwide protests against systemic racism and police brutality towards people of color. Trump himself vilified bonafide news outfits as \u201cfake news\u201d and qualified award-winning journalists as the \u201cenemy of the people,\u201d feeding the the type of threatening behavior, including violence and the destruction of equipment, that journalists faced during the uprising against the US Capitol Building on 6 January 2021. As dozens of alleged insurrectionists face serious jail time for federal crimes, the erosion of trust in the American media and unchecked conspiracy theories that continue to flourish online will require a concerted effort by all - the public sector and private companies alike - to ensure that press freedom in the US runs more than just skin deep. We are certainly better than some, but when our self-elected leader was openly attacking journalists we have a long way to go.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":151.0,"score_ratio":18.0} {"post_id":"qydsho","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: United States has the highest level of freedom of speech in the world Most would argue that majority of democratic states have a certain level on freedom of speech, yet under the first amendment, only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right. The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. I'm open to changing my view if someone can show me concrete examples that prove otherwise, as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth. Also, I'm only looking at internationally recognized sovereign nations, so \"countries\" like Liberland do not apply. Also, I'm not arguing if the level of freedom of speech in United States is a good thing or not, I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world.","c_root_id_A":"hlfdcvv","c_root_id_B":"hlfdqzn","created_at_utc_A":1637440527,"created_at_utc_B":1637440703,"score_A":12,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"> only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right May I present to you article 19 of the Belgian constitution? > Art. 19. De vrijheid van eredienst, de vrije openbare uitoefening ervan, alsmede de vrijheid om op elk gebied zijn mening te uiten, zijn gewaarborgd, behoudens bestraffing van de misdrijven die ter gelegenheid van het gebruikmaken van die vrijheden worden gepleegd. source Translated to English that becomes: > Art. 19. The freedom of worship, its free public exercise, as well as the freedom to express one's opinion in any field, are guaranteed, subject to punishment for crimes committed on the occasion of the use of these freedoms. And unlike the US, we did not need an amendment to guarantee free speech. > as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth Ever read the UN's universal declaration of human rights? Specifically article 19 > I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world. This statement seems to be contradicting this one: > The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. So which one is it, more free or the same limitations?","human_ref_B":"What is your objective standard of Freedom of speech? In any case, Daniel Hale, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange cases would beg to disagree, amongst a million others. US may have freedom of speech in principle, but not in effect. The National Defence Authorisation Act, the Patriot Act, the Espionage Act, have murdered any free speech by a thousand cuts\/exceptions. Finland has free speech, France has free speech, Faroe Islands has free speech, most nations have free speech with the exception of Islamic theocracies, dictatorships and narco-states. So, US is not special in giving lip-service to free speech while drowning it in darkness\/rendition. As per Freedom House report, US has declined in Freedom over the past years. Since, Freedom of speech is the vanguard of all other rights, guess what, objectively US has lost ground to other nations. Nations which for example, don't drone bomb people, including citizens for using their freedom of speech, or put them in jail for exposing the murders.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":176.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"qydsho","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: United States has the highest level of freedom of speech in the world Most would argue that majority of democratic states have a certain level on freedom of speech, yet under the first amendment, only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right. The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. I'm open to changing my view if someone can show me concrete examples that prove otherwise, as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth. Also, I'm only looking at internationally recognized sovereign nations, so \"countries\" like Liberland do not apply. Also, I'm not arguing if the level of freedom of speech in United States is a good thing or not, I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world.","c_root_id_A":"hlfdqzn","c_root_id_B":"hlfboxu","created_at_utc_A":1637440703,"created_at_utc_B":1637439782,"score_A":15,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"What is your objective standard of Freedom of speech? In any case, Daniel Hale, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange cases would beg to disagree, amongst a million others. US may have freedom of speech in principle, but not in effect. The National Defence Authorisation Act, the Patriot Act, the Espionage Act, have murdered any free speech by a thousand cuts\/exceptions. Finland has free speech, France has free speech, Faroe Islands has free speech, most nations have free speech with the exception of Islamic theocracies, dictatorships and narco-states. So, US is not special in giving lip-service to free speech while drowning it in darkness\/rendition. As per Freedom House report, US has declined in Freedom over the past years. Since, Freedom of speech is the vanguard of all other rights, guess what, objectively US has lost ground to other nations. Nations which for example, don't drone bomb people, including citizens for using their freedom of speech, or put them in jail for exposing the murders.","human_ref_B":"Would you call things like SLAPP suits an abridgement on free speech? Our civil court system can be so difficult and expensive just being sued is a major burden whether it has merit or not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":921.0,"score_ratio":1.3636363636} {"post_id":"qydsho","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: United States has the highest level of freedom of speech in the world Most would argue that majority of democratic states have a certain level on freedom of speech, yet under the first amendment, only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right. The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. I'm open to changing my view if someone can show me concrete examples that prove otherwise, as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth. Also, I'm only looking at internationally recognized sovereign nations, so \"countries\" like Liberland do not apply. Also, I'm not arguing if the level of freedom of speech in United States is a good thing or not, I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world.","c_root_id_A":"hlfbr3y","c_root_id_B":"hlfdqzn","created_at_utc_A":1637439809,"created_at_utc_B":1637440703,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Would a country where you can say anything including direct incitement of violence be freer?","human_ref_B":"What is your objective standard of Freedom of speech? In any case, Daniel Hale, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange cases would beg to disagree, amongst a million others. US may have freedom of speech in principle, but not in effect. The National Defence Authorisation Act, the Patriot Act, the Espionage Act, have murdered any free speech by a thousand cuts\/exceptions. Finland has free speech, France has free speech, Faroe Islands has free speech, most nations have free speech with the exception of Islamic theocracies, dictatorships and narco-states. So, US is not special in giving lip-service to free speech while drowning it in darkness\/rendition. As per Freedom House report, US has declined in Freedom over the past years. Since, Freedom of speech is the vanguard of all other rights, guess what, objectively US has lost ground to other nations. Nations which for example, don't drone bomb people, including citizens for using their freedom of speech, or put them in jail for exposing the murders.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":894.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"qydsho","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: United States has the highest level of freedom of speech in the world Most would argue that majority of democratic states have a certain level on freedom of speech, yet under the first amendment, only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right. The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. I'm open to changing my view if someone can show me concrete examples that prove otherwise, as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth. Also, I'm only looking at internationally recognized sovereign nations, so \"countries\" like Liberland do not apply. Also, I'm not arguing if the level of freedom of speech in United States is a good thing or not, I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world.","c_root_id_A":"hlfboxu","c_root_id_B":"hlfdcvv","created_at_utc_A":1637439782,"created_at_utc_B":1637440527,"score_A":11,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Would you call things like SLAPP suits an abridgement on free speech? Our civil court system can be so difficult and expensive just being sued is a major burden whether it has merit or not.","human_ref_B":"> only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right May I present to you article 19 of the Belgian constitution? > Art. 19. De vrijheid van eredienst, de vrije openbare uitoefening ervan, alsmede de vrijheid om op elk gebied zijn mening te uiten, zijn gewaarborgd, behoudens bestraffing van de misdrijven die ter gelegenheid van het gebruikmaken van die vrijheden worden gepleegd. source Translated to English that becomes: > Art. 19. The freedom of worship, its free public exercise, as well as the freedom to express one's opinion in any field, are guaranteed, subject to punishment for crimes committed on the occasion of the use of these freedoms. And unlike the US, we did not need an amendment to guarantee free speech. > as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth Ever read the UN's universal declaration of human rights? Specifically article 19 > I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world. This statement seems to be contradicting this one: > The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. So which one is it, more free or the same limitations?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":745.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909} {"post_id":"qydsho","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: United States has the highest level of freedom of speech in the world Most would argue that majority of democratic states have a certain level on freedom of speech, yet under the first amendment, only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right. The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. I'm open to changing my view if someone can show me concrete examples that prove otherwise, as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth. Also, I'm only looking at internationally recognized sovereign nations, so \"countries\" like Liberland do not apply. Also, I'm not arguing if the level of freedom of speech in United States is a good thing or not, I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world.","c_root_id_A":"hlfdcvv","c_root_id_B":"hlfbr3y","created_at_utc_A":1637440527,"created_at_utc_B":1637439809,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right May I present to you article 19 of the Belgian constitution? > Art. 19. De vrijheid van eredienst, de vrije openbare uitoefening ervan, alsmede de vrijheid om op elk gebied zijn mening te uiten, zijn gewaarborgd, behoudens bestraffing van de misdrijven die ter gelegenheid van het gebruikmaken van die vrijheden worden gepleegd. source Translated to English that becomes: > Art. 19. The freedom of worship, its free public exercise, as well as the freedom to express one's opinion in any field, are guaranteed, subject to punishment for crimes committed on the occasion of the use of these freedoms. And unlike the US, we did not need an amendment to guarantee free speech. > as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth Ever read the UN's universal declaration of human rights? Specifically article 19 > I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world. This statement seems to be contradicting this one: > The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. So which one is it, more free or the same limitations?","human_ref_B":"Would a country where you can say anything including direct incitement of violence be freer?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":718.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"qydsho","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: United States has the highest level of freedom of speech in the world Most would argue that majority of democratic states have a certain level on freedom of speech, yet under the first amendment, only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right. The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. I'm open to changing my view if someone can show me concrete examples that prove otherwise, as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth. Also, I'm only looking at internationally recognized sovereign nations, so \"countries\" like Liberland do not apply. Also, I'm not arguing if the level of freedom of speech in United States is a good thing or not, I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world.","c_root_id_A":"hlfbr3y","c_root_id_B":"hlfh3ay","created_at_utc_A":1637439809,"created_at_utc_B":1637442199,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Would a country where you can say anything including direct incitement of violence be freer?","human_ref_B":"I submit the Vatican as a country with similar if not better freedom of speech laws. Like most other countries, the Vatican has very similar speech laws as the USA. With regards to the majority of speech, you cannot necessarily say that the USA is better. The Vatican has some advantages in speech over the USA. In the Vatican, it is a crime to commit perjury (much like in any many places of the world). However, if you are coerced to commit perjury, that is not a crime. In the USA, perjuring yourself while under duress is still a crime. So, in this case at least, you have more freedom of speech in the Vatican. In defamation cases in the USA, a person can be held liable for making false claims, even if the person did only because they were mistaken. In the Vatican, a person can use ignorance of the facts as a defense. This means that in the Vatican you have more freedom to be critical of others. In reality, the differences are functionally negligible and I do generally agree with you that the USA technically more freedom of speech than many other countries. But, if you want to get to the nitty gritty details, the Vatican is at least equal and perhaps ever so slightly more free. Also, for anyone that wishes to complain about how restrictive the Catholic Church is, keep in mind that I am not talking about the Church, but the sovereign state of Vatican City. For example, if you ever go to Rome and decided to visit the Vatican, regardless of what religion you are, you are subject to Fundamental Law of Vatican City State.. I got the information from this article..","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2390.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"qydsho","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: United States has the highest level of freedom of speech in the world Most would argue that majority of democratic states have a certain level on freedom of speech, yet under the first amendment, only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right. The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. I'm open to changing my view if someone can show me concrete examples that prove otherwise, as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth. Also, I'm only looking at internationally recognized sovereign nations, so \"countries\" like Liberland do not apply. Also, I'm not arguing if the level of freedom of speech in United States is a good thing or not, I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world.","c_root_id_A":"hlfi2tt","c_root_id_B":"hlfbr3y","created_at_utc_A":1637442642,"created_at_utc_B":1637439809,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. That's false. Profanities are also not protected by free speech in the US,, e.g. on public broadcasts.","human_ref_B":"Would a country where you can say anything including direct incitement of violence be freer?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2833.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"qydsho","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: United States has the highest level of freedom of speech in the world Most would argue that majority of democratic states have a certain level on freedom of speech, yet under the first amendment, only the United States guarantees that government cannot infringe on this fundamental right. The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. As far as I am aware, all democratic nations also has this limitation. I'm open to changing my view if someone can show me concrete examples that prove otherwise, as I don't know the laws of every single nation on earth. Also, I'm only looking at internationally recognized sovereign nations, so \"countries\" like Liberland do not apply. Also, I'm not arguing if the level of freedom of speech in United States is a good thing or not, I'm just stating that in general it is \"freer\" than anywhere else in the world.","c_root_id_A":"hlfl5cl","c_root_id_B":"hlfbr3y","created_at_utc_A":1637444038,"created_at_utc_B":1637439809,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">The only limitation to the amendment is a direct incitement of violence. Can you back up this claim? 22 states have criminal defamation laws, albeit rarely enforced. There are various countries without criminal defamation. I don't know how we can measure which country has the freest speech, but in this specific regard there are countries that have legally protected individual's rights to defamatory speech more so than the United States.","human_ref_B":"Would a country where you can say anything including direct incitement of violence be freer?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4229.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"45msw5","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: It should be perfectly legal for two people of the exact same age to have voluntary sex with each other. I live in New York State, and if two 16 year olds have sex with each other, they'll both be charged with sexual misconduct. It's a misdemeanor charge, but they'll be tried as adults since in New York State, anyone who is at least 16 years old is automatically tried as an adult. The age of consent in New York State is 17. Many other states have similar laws, and I think it's simply absurd to claim that they are both \"victims\" of each other. In California, the age of consent is 18, so it's illegal for two 17 year olds to have sex. Literally, if two people under the age of consent have sex, they will both be charged with a crime. I can understand laws which prohibit an older person from having sex with a younger person, but laws which punish two people of the same age for having sex is simply absurd. Under the law, they are both the victim of each other, and I hope you'll agree with me that this is absurd. The worst part is that many people don't even know about this law. If two 16 year olds have sex, they're committing a crime without even knowing it. If everyone who committed this crime was caught, we would have a significant percentage of high school students in jail. To change my view, you must convince me that it's somehow reasonable to charge two people of the exact same age for having sex with each other. The most absurd part is that even if no one wants to press charges, if the cops somehow find out about it they will get charged. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"czz49v7","c_root_id_B":"czz2n6o","created_at_utc_A":1455416799,"created_at_utc_B":1455413844,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I've always been a fan of the +2 rule. I think a 35 or 50 year old person shouldn't be able to have sex with a minor, your have to draw the line somewhere and 18 is a decent enough place. But if your 17 and 364 days old nothing magically happens tomorrow. So a plus and minus 2 year window is probably fine to me as mentally and maturity wise it's very close. A 19 and a 17 year old aren't so far apart that there are moral problems with them doing something natural.","human_ref_B":"Why only the same age? What magically changes in a person when they reach the \"age of consent\" decided arbitrarily by the state which suddenly makes it alright? Why can't two sexually mature individuals, regardless of age, do what humans naturally do and have sex for pleasure (assuming consent on both sides)? Why should we automatically assume that someone was a \"victim\" if they don't agree that the action took place against their will?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2955.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkaccl","c_root_id_B":"ibkchv1","created_at_utc_A":1654655558,"created_at_utc_B":1654656667,"score_A":56,"score_B":181,"human_ref_A":"Capitalism is not the problem. Communist countries do the exact same power generation and pollution. Show me a non capitalist country that has used mostly renewable. The problem is systemic to the current human way of life. If the only way you can think to controll it is with dictatorship then your solution is automatically worse.","human_ref_B":"> So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Growth and consumption are a driver of the problem, yes. But why capitalism? * It wasn't capitalists who dried up the Aral Sea. It was the USSR. * It wasn't capitalists who deforested significant swathes of the premodern world for agriculture and fuel. It happened before capitalism existed, to support local needs. * It wasn't capitalists who deforested Easter Island. It was done by the native islanders and precipitated a population collapse before Europeans arrived. And so on. The actual driver here is simply that people - under any economic system - want better lives, which requires vast energy and resources. Yes, plastic bags are wasteful. But even without consumerism, people would need food. They would want extensive transportation, industrial, and residential infrastructure. They would want to go on vacation. They would want modern medicine - which requires a vast economy to support it. Looking at this breakdown of emissions: agriculture is 18%; cement production is 3%; energy, excluding industry and transportation, is 33%; iron and steel is 7%. Those alone - not consumerism-driven sectors, in general - account for about 60% of global CO2 emissions. If you simply want people to be able to eat, you're already well in excess of net zero. People below a certain level of wealth are not going to prioritize long-term sustainability over their well-being. It's never how we've worked, and that holds regardless of economic systems. As long as we can have a meaningfully better life by building it on steel and concrete, we're going to do it. We've done it in different ways since agriculture has existed, going back to primitive farmers clear-cutting forests to make way for fields. The primary solution is to reach the level of technology where a sustainable lifestyle makes sense. Where we can have modern medicine, banish famine, and provide durable housing for everyone without destabilizing the climate for it. How fast we get there isn't meaningfully dependent on capitalism - capitalists are among those making it happen and among those resisting it, just like governments help drive that change and sponsor the annihilation of ecosystems.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1109.0,"score_ratio":3.2321428571} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkchv1","c_root_id_B":"ibkbl23","created_at_utc_A":1654656667,"created_at_utc_B":1654656197,"score_A":181,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"> So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Growth and consumption are a driver of the problem, yes. But why capitalism? * It wasn't capitalists who dried up the Aral Sea. It was the USSR. * It wasn't capitalists who deforested significant swathes of the premodern world for agriculture and fuel. It happened before capitalism existed, to support local needs. * It wasn't capitalists who deforested Easter Island. It was done by the native islanders and precipitated a population collapse before Europeans arrived. And so on. The actual driver here is simply that people - under any economic system - want better lives, which requires vast energy and resources. Yes, plastic bags are wasteful. But even without consumerism, people would need food. They would want extensive transportation, industrial, and residential infrastructure. They would want to go on vacation. They would want modern medicine - which requires a vast economy to support it. Looking at this breakdown of emissions: agriculture is 18%; cement production is 3%; energy, excluding industry and transportation, is 33%; iron and steel is 7%. Those alone - not consumerism-driven sectors, in general - account for about 60% of global CO2 emissions. If you simply want people to be able to eat, you're already well in excess of net zero. People below a certain level of wealth are not going to prioritize long-term sustainability over their well-being. It's never how we've worked, and that holds regardless of economic systems. As long as we can have a meaningfully better life by building it on steel and concrete, we're going to do it. We've done it in different ways since agriculture has existed, going back to primitive farmers clear-cutting forests to make way for fields. The primary solution is to reach the level of technology where a sustainable lifestyle makes sense. Where we can have modern medicine, banish famine, and provide durable housing for everyone without destabilizing the climate for it. How fast we get there isn't meaningfully dependent on capitalism - capitalists are among those making it happen and among those resisting it, just like governments help drive that change and sponsor the annihilation of ecosystems.","human_ref_B":">Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Well if everyone actually did that, it would work. The issue is that there are not enough incentives for everyone to behave in an environmentally conscious manner. >So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. We already have the technology to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, even with increasing consumption. It's not as if we need the economy to collapse to reduce the impacts of climate change, we can avoid its worst effects with substantial public investment. It's just a matter of that price tag being too high for many to swallow. >Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we must eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. With all due respect, do you seriously see a global elimination of capitalism and the consolidation of all nation states under a one organization in the next 30 years as a more likely scenario than countries in our existing system escalating public investment to fight climate change? It's all fine and dandy to say that our current system is unlikely to invest what is properly needed to fight climate change. But your solution is even more unlikely. So if you're judging capitalism on that basis, your solution is even less up to the task of fighting climate change. >Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. I would like to point out that world governments can and have tackled serious problems in cooperation with each other in the past, like with the elimination of smallpox. Working together for the common good of all humankind is not a foreign concept to researchers across the world. It's just a matter of political will to do these things. >It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. What stops the one-world government from becoming corrupt and enchaining you?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":470.0,"score_ratio":5.4848484848} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk9ehq","c_root_id_B":"ibkchv1","created_at_utc_A":1654655076,"created_at_utc_B":1654656667,"score_A":14,"score_B":181,"human_ref_A":"So I guess I have two main points. First, what\u2019s your alternative? What system of economic, and likely political, organization will solve the problem of climate change? Second, what if Capitalism could solve the issue of climate change? If the incentive structure of Capitalism could serve to combat climate change? If the energy economy could be denuded of oil and natural gas subsidies and those energy sources forced to compete with renewables and nuclear power? Would you support that or would you be more interested in eliminating capitalism?","human_ref_B":"> So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Growth and consumption are a driver of the problem, yes. But why capitalism? * It wasn't capitalists who dried up the Aral Sea. It was the USSR. * It wasn't capitalists who deforested significant swathes of the premodern world for agriculture and fuel. It happened before capitalism existed, to support local needs. * It wasn't capitalists who deforested Easter Island. It was done by the native islanders and precipitated a population collapse before Europeans arrived. And so on. The actual driver here is simply that people - under any economic system - want better lives, which requires vast energy and resources. Yes, plastic bags are wasteful. But even without consumerism, people would need food. They would want extensive transportation, industrial, and residential infrastructure. They would want to go on vacation. They would want modern medicine - which requires a vast economy to support it. Looking at this breakdown of emissions: agriculture is 18%; cement production is 3%; energy, excluding industry and transportation, is 33%; iron and steel is 7%. Those alone - not consumerism-driven sectors, in general - account for about 60% of global CO2 emissions. If you simply want people to be able to eat, you're already well in excess of net zero. People below a certain level of wealth are not going to prioritize long-term sustainability over their well-being. It's never how we've worked, and that holds regardless of economic systems. As long as we can have a meaningfully better life by building it on steel and concrete, we're going to do it. We've done it in different ways since agriculture has existed, going back to primitive farmers clear-cutting forests to make way for fields. The primary solution is to reach the level of technology where a sustainable lifestyle makes sense. Where we can have modern medicine, banish famine, and provide durable housing for everyone without destabilizing the climate for it. How fast we get there isn't meaningfully dependent on capitalism - capitalists are among those making it happen and among those resisting it, just like governments help drive that change and sponsor the annihilation of ecosystems.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1591.0,"score_ratio":12.9285714286} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkchv1","c_root_id_B":"ibkb1c6","created_at_utc_A":1654656667,"created_at_utc_B":1654655913,"score_A":181,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Growth and consumption are a driver of the problem, yes. But why capitalism? * It wasn't capitalists who dried up the Aral Sea. It was the USSR. * It wasn't capitalists who deforested significant swathes of the premodern world for agriculture and fuel. It happened before capitalism existed, to support local needs. * It wasn't capitalists who deforested Easter Island. It was done by the native islanders and precipitated a population collapse before Europeans arrived. And so on. The actual driver here is simply that people - under any economic system - want better lives, which requires vast energy and resources. Yes, plastic bags are wasteful. But even without consumerism, people would need food. They would want extensive transportation, industrial, and residential infrastructure. They would want to go on vacation. They would want modern medicine - which requires a vast economy to support it. Looking at this breakdown of emissions: agriculture is 18%; cement production is 3%; energy, excluding industry and transportation, is 33%; iron and steel is 7%. Those alone - not consumerism-driven sectors, in general - account for about 60% of global CO2 emissions. If you simply want people to be able to eat, you're already well in excess of net zero. People below a certain level of wealth are not going to prioritize long-term sustainability over their well-being. It's never how we've worked, and that holds regardless of economic systems. As long as we can have a meaningfully better life by building it on steel and concrete, we're going to do it. We've done it in different ways since agriculture has existed, going back to primitive farmers clear-cutting forests to make way for fields. The primary solution is to reach the level of technology where a sustainable lifestyle makes sense. Where we can have modern medicine, banish famine, and provide durable housing for everyone without destabilizing the climate for it. How fast we get there isn't meaningfully dependent on capitalism - capitalists are among those making it happen and among those resisting it, just like governments help drive that change and sponsor the annihilation of ecosystems.","human_ref_B":"So what do you propose as an alternative to capitalism? Most communist countries have track record of facilitating unprecedented environmental disasters, from Chernobyl to toxic waste dumps to draining the Aral sea to the Great Leap Forward to how China is gung-ho with new coal-burning power plants.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":754.0,"score_ratio":25.8571428571} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk8yzz","c_root_id_B":"ibkchv1","created_at_utc_A":1654654860,"created_at_utc_B":1654656667,"score_A":2,"score_B":181,"human_ref_A":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","human_ref_B":"> So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Growth and consumption are a driver of the problem, yes. But why capitalism? * It wasn't capitalists who dried up the Aral Sea. It was the USSR. * It wasn't capitalists who deforested significant swathes of the premodern world for agriculture and fuel. It happened before capitalism existed, to support local needs. * It wasn't capitalists who deforested Easter Island. It was done by the native islanders and precipitated a population collapse before Europeans arrived. And so on. The actual driver here is simply that people - under any economic system - want better lives, which requires vast energy and resources. Yes, plastic bags are wasteful. But even without consumerism, people would need food. They would want extensive transportation, industrial, and residential infrastructure. They would want to go on vacation. They would want modern medicine - which requires a vast economy to support it. Looking at this breakdown of emissions: agriculture is 18%; cement production is 3%; energy, excluding industry and transportation, is 33%; iron and steel is 7%. Those alone - not consumerism-driven sectors, in general - account for about 60% of global CO2 emissions. If you simply want people to be able to eat, you're already well in excess of net zero. People below a certain level of wealth are not going to prioritize long-term sustainability over their well-being. It's never how we've worked, and that holds regardless of economic systems. As long as we can have a meaningfully better life by building it on steel and concrete, we're going to do it. We've done it in different ways since agriculture has existed, going back to primitive farmers clear-cutting forests to make way for fields. The primary solution is to reach the level of technology where a sustainable lifestyle makes sense. Where we can have modern medicine, banish famine, and provide durable housing for everyone without destabilizing the climate for it. How fast we get there isn't meaningfully dependent on capitalism - capitalists are among those making it happen and among those resisting it, just like governments help drive that change and sponsor the annihilation of ecosystems.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1807.0,"score_ratio":90.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk9ehq","c_root_id_B":"ibkaccl","created_at_utc_A":1654655076,"created_at_utc_B":1654655558,"score_A":14,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"So I guess I have two main points. First, what\u2019s your alternative? What system of economic, and likely political, organization will solve the problem of climate change? Second, what if Capitalism could solve the issue of climate change? If the incentive structure of Capitalism could serve to combat climate change? If the energy economy could be denuded of oil and natural gas subsidies and those energy sources forced to compete with renewables and nuclear power? Would you support that or would you be more interested in eliminating capitalism?","human_ref_B":"Capitalism is not the problem. Communist countries do the exact same power generation and pollution. Show me a non capitalist country that has used mostly renewable. The problem is systemic to the current human way of life. If the only way you can think to controll it is with dictatorship then your solution is automatically worse.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":482.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk8yzz","c_root_id_B":"ibkaccl","created_at_utc_A":1654654860,"created_at_utc_B":1654655558,"score_A":2,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","human_ref_B":"Capitalism is not the problem. Communist countries do the exact same power generation and pollution. Show me a non capitalist country that has used mostly renewable. The problem is systemic to the current human way of life. If the only way you can think to controll it is with dictatorship then your solution is automatically worse.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":698.0,"score_ratio":28.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk9ehq","c_root_id_B":"ibkbl23","created_at_utc_A":1654655076,"created_at_utc_B":1654656197,"score_A":14,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"So I guess I have two main points. First, what\u2019s your alternative? What system of economic, and likely political, organization will solve the problem of climate change? Second, what if Capitalism could solve the issue of climate change? If the incentive structure of Capitalism could serve to combat climate change? If the energy economy could be denuded of oil and natural gas subsidies and those energy sources forced to compete with renewables and nuclear power? Would you support that or would you be more interested in eliminating capitalism?","human_ref_B":">Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Well if everyone actually did that, it would work. The issue is that there are not enough incentives for everyone to behave in an environmentally conscious manner. >So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. We already have the technology to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, even with increasing consumption. It's not as if we need the economy to collapse to reduce the impacts of climate change, we can avoid its worst effects with substantial public investment. It's just a matter of that price tag being too high for many to swallow. >Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we must eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. With all due respect, do you seriously see a global elimination of capitalism and the consolidation of all nation states under a one organization in the next 30 years as a more likely scenario than countries in our existing system escalating public investment to fight climate change? It's all fine and dandy to say that our current system is unlikely to invest what is properly needed to fight climate change. But your solution is even more unlikely. So if you're judging capitalism on that basis, your solution is even less up to the task of fighting climate change. >Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. I would like to point out that world governments can and have tackled serious problems in cooperation with each other in the past, like with the elimination of smallpox. Working together for the common good of all humankind is not a foreign concept to researchers across the world. It's just a matter of political will to do these things. >It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. What stops the one-world government from becoming corrupt and enchaining you?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1121.0,"score_ratio":2.3571428571} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkbl23","c_root_id_B":"ibkb1c6","created_at_utc_A":1654656197,"created_at_utc_B":1654655913,"score_A":33,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Well if everyone actually did that, it would work. The issue is that there are not enough incentives for everyone to behave in an environmentally conscious manner. >So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. We already have the technology to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, even with increasing consumption. It's not as if we need the economy to collapse to reduce the impacts of climate change, we can avoid its worst effects with substantial public investment. It's just a matter of that price tag being too high for many to swallow. >Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we must eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. With all due respect, do you seriously see a global elimination of capitalism and the consolidation of all nation states under a one organization in the next 30 years as a more likely scenario than countries in our existing system escalating public investment to fight climate change? It's all fine and dandy to say that our current system is unlikely to invest what is properly needed to fight climate change. But your solution is even more unlikely. So if you're judging capitalism on that basis, your solution is even less up to the task of fighting climate change. >Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. I would like to point out that world governments can and have tackled serious problems in cooperation with each other in the past, like with the elimination of smallpox. Working together for the common good of all humankind is not a foreign concept to researchers across the world. It's just a matter of political will to do these things. >It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. What stops the one-world government from becoming corrupt and enchaining you?","human_ref_B":"So what do you propose as an alternative to capitalism? Most communist countries have track record of facilitating unprecedented environmental disasters, from Chernobyl to toxic waste dumps to draining the Aral sea to the Great Leap Forward to how China is gung-ho with new coal-burning power plants.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":284.0,"score_ratio":4.7142857143} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkbl23","c_root_id_B":"ibk8yzz","created_at_utc_A":1654656197,"created_at_utc_B":1654654860,"score_A":33,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Well if everyone actually did that, it would work. The issue is that there are not enough incentives for everyone to behave in an environmentally conscious manner. >So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. We already have the technology to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, even with increasing consumption. It's not as if we need the economy to collapse to reduce the impacts of climate change, we can avoid its worst effects with substantial public investment. It's just a matter of that price tag being too high for many to swallow. >Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we must eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. With all due respect, do you seriously see a global elimination of capitalism and the consolidation of all nation states under a one organization in the next 30 years as a more likely scenario than countries in our existing system escalating public investment to fight climate change? It's all fine and dandy to say that our current system is unlikely to invest what is properly needed to fight climate change. But your solution is even more unlikely. So if you're judging capitalism on that basis, your solution is even less up to the task of fighting climate change. >Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. I would like to point out that world governments can and have tackled serious problems in cooperation with each other in the past, like with the elimination of smallpox. Working together for the common good of all humankind is not a foreign concept to researchers across the world. It's just a matter of political will to do these things. >It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. What stops the one-world government from becoming corrupt and enchaining you?","human_ref_B":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1337.0,"score_ratio":16.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkis75","c_root_id_B":"ibke0kv","created_at_utc_A":1654660265,"created_at_utc_B":1654657486,"score_A":28,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"> ... and in turn we must always consume more. ... The big bad capitalists aren't forcing you to consume more. You don't *have to* buy that extra thing. People consume more because they want to. It is human nature to want more than you have.","human_ref_B":"Your consumption is 100% your problem and your responsibility. Blaming capitalism while saying your own responsibility is a scam is not just crap, it causes nothing to be done. Know what a company needs to produce crap that you thinks pollutes? People to buy it. So lead the way and consume less, don\u2019t pass of any responsibility.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2779.0,"score_ratio":1.6470588235} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk9ehq","c_root_id_B":"ibkis75","created_at_utc_A":1654655076,"created_at_utc_B":1654660265,"score_A":14,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"So I guess I have two main points. First, what\u2019s your alternative? What system of economic, and likely political, organization will solve the problem of climate change? Second, what if Capitalism could solve the issue of climate change? If the incentive structure of Capitalism could serve to combat climate change? If the energy economy could be denuded of oil and natural gas subsidies and those energy sources forced to compete with renewables and nuclear power? Would you support that or would you be more interested in eliminating capitalism?","human_ref_B":"> ... and in turn we must always consume more. ... The big bad capitalists aren't forcing you to consume more. You don't *have to* buy that extra thing. People consume more because they want to. It is human nature to want more than you have.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5189.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkis75","c_root_id_B":"ibkfge5","created_at_utc_A":1654660265,"created_at_utc_B":1654658299,"score_A":28,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> ... and in turn we must always consume more. ... The big bad capitalists aren't forcing you to consume more. You don't *have to* buy that extra thing. People consume more because they want to. It is human nature to want more than you have.","human_ref_B":"Depends on the country, in America it's a democratic nation (not a communist) so because of that, the problem is both. Capitalism is driven by demand. Demand is from the people. Democracy is the vote of the \"majority\". Politicians are voted in by the people. So the people have voted politicians to be corrupt, the people continue to buy non environmentally friendly product continue to contribute to the issue. If enough people want the change, then they'd have to change the demand of the product - and the companies will shift. Look at Tesla. EVs have been around for years, but the demand wasn't there. Then came Elon and caused a shift in demand, now all the makers are changing. Toyota hates making EV, they're all about hydrogen, they even made a statement they won't make EVs, but cause of the demand - they're now making EVs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1966.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkis75","c_root_id_B":"ibkb1c6","created_at_utc_A":1654660265,"created_at_utc_B":1654655913,"score_A":28,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> ... and in turn we must always consume more. ... The big bad capitalists aren't forcing you to consume more. You don't *have to* buy that extra thing. People consume more because they want to. It is human nature to want more than you have.","human_ref_B":"So what do you propose as an alternative to capitalism? Most communist countries have track record of facilitating unprecedented environmental disasters, from Chernobyl to toxic waste dumps to draining the Aral sea to the Great Leap Forward to how China is gung-ho with new coal-burning power plants.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4352.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkfuk1","c_root_id_B":"ibkis75","created_at_utc_A":1654658528,"created_at_utc_B":1654660265,"score_A":5,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Take an honest look at the world. Despite all their lingering problems, the most environmentally sound places in the world are where western capitalism has flourished. Western countries certainly had some dark environmental days, but ONLY relatively free markets have allowed the western world to get to an economic state where we can worry about, and devote resources to environmental concerns. If you live in the US, you have clean drinking water, you don\u2019t live in risk of getting cholera from exposure to untreated sewage, there is more forested acreage than there was 150 years ago, you can swim in almost any lakes or rivers in the country without risking disease, you don\u2019t have to cut down trees and make charcoal for heat (go to Haiti and see what environmental disaster looks like), we aren\u2019t pouring tons and tons of plastic into the ocean, etc. Same for all the places were free markets thrive. Where are people too poor and too consumed by sustenance living to worry about climate change or the environment in general? Only free markets created the ability for you to have enough shelter, food, education, and technology to make this post. Thank your lucky stars.","human_ref_B":"> ... and in turn we must always consume more. ... The big bad capitalists aren't forcing you to consume more. You don't *have to* buy that extra thing. People consume more because they want to. It is human nature to want more than you have.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1737.0,"score_ratio":5.6} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkis75","c_root_id_B":"ibkeohb","created_at_utc_A":1654660265,"created_at_utc_B":1654657858,"score_A":28,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> ... and in turn we must always consume more. ... The big bad capitalists aren't forcing you to consume more. You don't *have to* buy that extra thing. People consume more because they want to. It is human nature to want more than you have.","human_ref_B":">the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives Even in a socialist, democratically-owned economy, reducing pollution and climate change would still require individual people making - or ACCEPTING - a change in their life. It isn't simply the means of production that are to blame, it is the rate of consumption as well. In my estimation it is true that capitalism encourages and benefits from endlessly increasing consumption - but frankly, from a cultural perspective, many people in the first world have been trained to pursue consumption. If people can't give up their consumption, what benefit would it be to democratize the economy? They'd simply vote to continue exploitative practices so their lifestyle could be maintained. Heck, why would they want to overthrow capitalism in the first place and disrupt the flow of cheap goods and services? At some point, individual behavior HAS to change.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2407.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkis75","c_root_id_B":"ibk8yzz","created_at_utc_A":1654660265,"created_at_utc_B":1654654860,"score_A":28,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> ... and in turn we must always consume more. ... The big bad capitalists aren't forcing you to consume more. You don't *have to* buy that extra thing. People consume more because they want to. It is human nature to want more than you have.","human_ref_B":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5405.0,"score_ratio":14.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk9ehq","c_root_id_B":"ibke0kv","created_at_utc_A":1654655076,"created_at_utc_B":1654657486,"score_A":14,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"So I guess I have two main points. First, what\u2019s your alternative? What system of economic, and likely political, organization will solve the problem of climate change? Second, what if Capitalism could solve the issue of climate change? If the incentive structure of Capitalism could serve to combat climate change? If the energy economy could be denuded of oil and natural gas subsidies and those energy sources forced to compete with renewables and nuclear power? Would you support that or would you be more interested in eliminating capitalism?","human_ref_B":"Your consumption is 100% your problem and your responsibility. Blaming capitalism while saying your own responsibility is a scam is not just crap, it causes nothing to be done. Know what a company needs to produce crap that you thinks pollutes? People to buy it. So lead the way and consume less, don\u2019t pass of any responsibility.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2410.0,"score_ratio":1.2142857143} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkb1c6","c_root_id_B":"ibke0kv","created_at_utc_A":1654655913,"created_at_utc_B":1654657486,"score_A":7,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"So what do you propose as an alternative to capitalism? Most communist countries have track record of facilitating unprecedented environmental disasters, from Chernobyl to toxic waste dumps to draining the Aral sea to the Great Leap Forward to how China is gung-ho with new coal-burning power plants.","human_ref_B":"Your consumption is 100% your problem and your responsibility. Blaming capitalism while saying your own responsibility is a scam is not just crap, it causes nothing to be done. Know what a company needs to produce crap that you thinks pollutes? People to buy it. So lead the way and consume less, don\u2019t pass of any responsibility.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1573.0,"score_ratio":2.4285714286} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk8yzz","c_root_id_B":"ibke0kv","created_at_utc_A":1654654860,"created_at_utc_B":1654657486,"score_A":2,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","human_ref_B":"Your consumption is 100% your problem and your responsibility. Blaming capitalism while saying your own responsibility is a scam is not just crap, it causes nothing to be done. Know what a company needs to produce crap that you thinks pollutes? People to buy it. So lead the way and consume less, don\u2019t pass of any responsibility.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2626.0,"score_ratio":8.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk9ehq","c_root_id_B":"ibkn239","created_at_utc_A":1654655076,"created_at_utc_B":1654662996,"score_A":14,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"So I guess I have two main points. First, what\u2019s your alternative? What system of economic, and likely political, organization will solve the problem of climate change? Second, what if Capitalism could solve the issue of climate change? If the incentive structure of Capitalism could serve to combat climate change? If the energy economy could be denuded of oil and natural gas subsidies and those energy sources forced to compete with renewables and nuclear power? Would you support that or would you be more interested in eliminating capitalism?","human_ref_B":"**TL;DR - climate change isn't a single problem with a single cause and a single solution, it's dozens of problems with hundreds of pieces to different parts of the solution and many causes.** Other comments have pointed out that capitalist economies aren't the only ones responsible for climate change - basically every developed country got to where they are on industrialization, which is *massively* harmful to the environment. We'd still be running into the same climate issues if communism or socialism had won out as the major global economic system - arguably *much worse* if it had been Soviet-style communism. **Climate change isn't a single problem.** Let's focus specifically on greenhouse gasses - by far the biggest and most well known is carbon dioxide (CO2), but there are definitely others - methane (CH4) is about 100x worse than CO2, but we also put *way* less of it into the atmosphere. Water vapor (H2O) is also significantly worse than CO2 but has natural processes that keep it in a healthy balance between air-water and ground\/ocean-water. The EPA page on greenhouse gasses is a nice starting point for learning about all the different greenhouse gas emissions sources, though there's certainly other great reports - here is another excellent one that has more current and detailed data. Impact is measured in \"CO2e\", or how many tonnes of CO2 the emissions are equal to (e.g. 1 tonne of methane is much more than 1 tonne CO2e). **Many of these problems ARE the fault of \"big oil,\" lack of societal infrastructure, and the active suppression of green technology by those in power. Individual action will not solve many of those problems.** * A whopping 55% of it is from energy production! * Fixing this will require transitions to sustainable energy - solar, wind, hydro, nuclear * We've been dragging our feet here because of massive lobbies by the private energy sector, which (you guessed it) is heavily invested in oil, coal, and natural gas. * You can *reduce* your energy use, but you keeping your lights on isn't what's burning the planet - most energy use is well outside your control. * Another 14% is from road and aviation transport * For many in the States, public transportation is not an option no matter how pure-hearted climate change activists they are. * Electric cars are also a great step in the right direction, but still super out of reach of most people because of things that (you guessed it) could be fixed by the people in control. **BUT! Many of the problems are things that YOU, a citizen in a first-world country, have direct power to fix.** * Livestock is responsible for 6% of emissions, and ain't no fat cats forcing you to eat meat * Beef in particular comes with INSANE emissions - 1 pound of beef carries the same emissions as burning about 3 gallons of gasoline * You can choose to eat a vegan, plant-focused, or fish-based protein diet TODAY and have direct and measurable impact on the climate. * That 14% from transportation is a gray area where you still have a lot of control * Buy local to avoid incurring shipping costs - we do not have sustainable alternatives to flight and cargo ships * Ride a bike, take the bus, buy an electric car. Not everybody has that option, but if *you* do than it doesn't do you any good to bellyache about capitalism online. * 11% of the energy production (8% of the total) is used in residential buildings! * That's right - family homes! Not factories, not warehouses, *homes*. * Run your A\/C less. Get energy efficient lights and appliances. * 3% is from waste. Re-use, recycle where re-using is infeasible, extend lifetimes of goods where recycling is infeasible. In order to solve climate change, we need to resolve 100% of these issues. You can do your part today! You don't have to wait for politicians to ride your bike to work, to grow your own vegetables, to eat vegan, to switch to LED lights in your home, to open your windows instead of running your A\/C, etc. *Your part isn't enough*, we still do need massive overhauls which require the powerful people in control to do their part too - and their part is bigger than your part - but the \"climate change isn't my fault so I won't bother to do anything about it\" is a pretty shitty take.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7920.0,"score_ratio":1.0714285714} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkn239","c_root_id_B":"ibkfge5","created_at_utc_A":1654662996,"created_at_utc_B":1654658299,"score_A":15,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"**TL;DR - climate change isn't a single problem with a single cause and a single solution, it's dozens of problems with hundreds of pieces to different parts of the solution and many causes.** Other comments have pointed out that capitalist economies aren't the only ones responsible for climate change - basically every developed country got to where they are on industrialization, which is *massively* harmful to the environment. We'd still be running into the same climate issues if communism or socialism had won out as the major global economic system - arguably *much worse* if it had been Soviet-style communism. **Climate change isn't a single problem.** Let's focus specifically on greenhouse gasses - by far the biggest and most well known is carbon dioxide (CO2), but there are definitely others - methane (CH4) is about 100x worse than CO2, but we also put *way* less of it into the atmosphere. Water vapor (H2O) is also significantly worse than CO2 but has natural processes that keep it in a healthy balance between air-water and ground\/ocean-water. The EPA page on greenhouse gasses is a nice starting point for learning about all the different greenhouse gas emissions sources, though there's certainly other great reports - here is another excellent one that has more current and detailed data. Impact is measured in \"CO2e\", or how many tonnes of CO2 the emissions are equal to (e.g. 1 tonne of methane is much more than 1 tonne CO2e). **Many of these problems ARE the fault of \"big oil,\" lack of societal infrastructure, and the active suppression of green technology by those in power. Individual action will not solve many of those problems.** * A whopping 55% of it is from energy production! * Fixing this will require transitions to sustainable energy - solar, wind, hydro, nuclear * We've been dragging our feet here because of massive lobbies by the private energy sector, which (you guessed it) is heavily invested in oil, coal, and natural gas. * You can *reduce* your energy use, but you keeping your lights on isn't what's burning the planet - most energy use is well outside your control. * Another 14% is from road and aviation transport * For many in the States, public transportation is not an option no matter how pure-hearted climate change activists they are. * Electric cars are also a great step in the right direction, but still super out of reach of most people because of things that (you guessed it) could be fixed by the people in control. **BUT! Many of the problems are things that YOU, a citizen in a first-world country, have direct power to fix.** * Livestock is responsible for 6% of emissions, and ain't no fat cats forcing you to eat meat * Beef in particular comes with INSANE emissions - 1 pound of beef carries the same emissions as burning about 3 gallons of gasoline * You can choose to eat a vegan, plant-focused, or fish-based protein diet TODAY and have direct and measurable impact on the climate. * That 14% from transportation is a gray area where you still have a lot of control * Buy local to avoid incurring shipping costs - we do not have sustainable alternatives to flight and cargo ships * Ride a bike, take the bus, buy an electric car. Not everybody has that option, but if *you* do than it doesn't do you any good to bellyache about capitalism online. * 11% of the energy production (8% of the total) is used in residential buildings! * That's right - family homes! Not factories, not warehouses, *homes*. * Run your A\/C less. Get energy efficient lights and appliances. * 3% is from waste. Re-use, recycle where re-using is infeasible, extend lifetimes of goods where recycling is infeasible. In order to solve climate change, we need to resolve 100% of these issues. You can do your part today! You don't have to wait for politicians to ride your bike to work, to grow your own vegetables, to eat vegan, to switch to LED lights in your home, to open your windows instead of running your A\/C, etc. *Your part isn't enough*, we still do need massive overhauls which require the powerful people in control to do their part too - and their part is bigger than your part - but the \"climate change isn't my fault so I won't bother to do anything about it\" is a pretty shitty take.","human_ref_B":"Depends on the country, in America it's a democratic nation (not a communist) so because of that, the problem is both. Capitalism is driven by demand. Demand is from the people. Democracy is the vote of the \"majority\". Politicians are voted in by the people. So the people have voted politicians to be corrupt, the people continue to buy non environmentally friendly product continue to contribute to the issue. If enough people want the change, then they'd have to change the demand of the product - and the companies will shift. Look at Tesla. EVs have been around for years, but the demand wasn't there. Then came Elon and caused a shift in demand, now all the makers are changing. Toyota hates making EV, they're all about hydrogen, they even made a statement they won't make EVs, but cause of the demand - they're now making EVs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4697.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkb1c6","c_root_id_B":"ibkn239","created_at_utc_A":1654655913,"created_at_utc_B":1654662996,"score_A":7,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"So what do you propose as an alternative to capitalism? Most communist countries have track record of facilitating unprecedented environmental disasters, from Chernobyl to toxic waste dumps to draining the Aral sea to the Great Leap Forward to how China is gung-ho with new coal-burning power plants.","human_ref_B":"**TL;DR - climate change isn't a single problem with a single cause and a single solution, it's dozens of problems with hundreds of pieces to different parts of the solution and many causes.** Other comments have pointed out that capitalist economies aren't the only ones responsible for climate change - basically every developed country got to where they are on industrialization, which is *massively* harmful to the environment. We'd still be running into the same climate issues if communism or socialism had won out as the major global economic system - arguably *much worse* if it had been Soviet-style communism. **Climate change isn't a single problem.** Let's focus specifically on greenhouse gasses - by far the biggest and most well known is carbon dioxide (CO2), but there are definitely others - methane (CH4) is about 100x worse than CO2, but we also put *way* less of it into the atmosphere. Water vapor (H2O) is also significantly worse than CO2 but has natural processes that keep it in a healthy balance between air-water and ground\/ocean-water. The EPA page on greenhouse gasses is a nice starting point for learning about all the different greenhouse gas emissions sources, though there's certainly other great reports - here is another excellent one that has more current and detailed data. Impact is measured in \"CO2e\", or how many tonnes of CO2 the emissions are equal to (e.g. 1 tonne of methane is much more than 1 tonne CO2e). **Many of these problems ARE the fault of \"big oil,\" lack of societal infrastructure, and the active suppression of green technology by those in power. Individual action will not solve many of those problems.** * A whopping 55% of it is from energy production! * Fixing this will require transitions to sustainable energy - solar, wind, hydro, nuclear * We've been dragging our feet here because of massive lobbies by the private energy sector, which (you guessed it) is heavily invested in oil, coal, and natural gas. * You can *reduce* your energy use, but you keeping your lights on isn't what's burning the planet - most energy use is well outside your control. * Another 14% is from road and aviation transport * For many in the States, public transportation is not an option no matter how pure-hearted climate change activists they are. * Electric cars are also a great step in the right direction, but still super out of reach of most people because of things that (you guessed it) could be fixed by the people in control. **BUT! Many of the problems are things that YOU, a citizen in a first-world country, have direct power to fix.** * Livestock is responsible for 6% of emissions, and ain't no fat cats forcing you to eat meat * Beef in particular comes with INSANE emissions - 1 pound of beef carries the same emissions as burning about 3 gallons of gasoline * You can choose to eat a vegan, plant-focused, or fish-based protein diet TODAY and have direct and measurable impact on the climate. * That 14% from transportation is a gray area where you still have a lot of control * Buy local to avoid incurring shipping costs - we do not have sustainable alternatives to flight and cargo ships * Ride a bike, take the bus, buy an electric car. Not everybody has that option, but if *you* do than it doesn't do you any good to bellyache about capitalism online. * 11% of the energy production (8% of the total) is used in residential buildings! * That's right - family homes! Not factories, not warehouses, *homes*. * Run your A\/C less. Get energy efficient lights and appliances. * 3% is from waste. Re-use, recycle where re-using is infeasible, extend lifetimes of goods where recycling is infeasible. In order to solve climate change, we need to resolve 100% of these issues. You can do your part today! You don't have to wait for politicians to ride your bike to work, to grow your own vegetables, to eat vegan, to switch to LED lights in your home, to open your windows instead of running your A\/C, etc. *Your part isn't enough*, we still do need massive overhauls which require the powerful people in control to do their part too - and their part is bigger than your part - but the \"climate change isn't my fault so I won't bother to do anything about it\" is a pretty shitty take.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7083.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkfuk1","c_root_id_B":"ibkn239","created_at_utc_A":1654658528,"created_at_utc_B":1654662996,"score_A":5,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Take an honest look at the world. Despite all their lingering problems, the most environmentally sound places in the world are where western capitalism has flourished. Western countries certainly had some dark environmental days, but ONLY relatively free markets have allowed the western world to get to an economic state where we can worry about, and devote resources to environmental concerns. If you live in the US, you have clean drinking water, you don\u2019t live in risk of getting cholera from exposure to untreated sewage, there is more forested acreage than there was 150 years ago, you can swim in almost any lakes or rivers in the country without risking disease, you don\u2019t have to cut down trees and make charcoal for heat (go to Haiti and see what environmental disaster looks like), we aren\u2019t pouring tons and tons of plastic into the ocean, etc. Same for all the places were free markets thrive. Where are people too poor and too consumed by sustenance living to worry about climate change or the environment in general? Only free markets created the ability for you to have enough shelter, food, education, and technology to make this post. Thank your lucky stars.","human_ref_B":"**TL;DR - climate change isn't a single problem with a single cause and a single solution, it's dozens of problems with hundreds of pieces to different parts of the solution and many causes.** Other comments have pointed out that capitalist economies aren't the only ones responsible for climate change - basically every developed country got to where they are on industrialization, which is *massively* harmful to the environment. We'd still be running into the same climate issues if communism or socialism had won out as the major global economic system - arguably *much worse* if it had been Soviet-style communism. **Climate change isn't a single problem.** Let's focus specifically on greenhouse gasses - by far the biggest and most well known is carbon dioxide (CO2), but there are definitely others - methane (CH4) is about 100x worse than CO2, but we also put *way* less of it into the atmosphere. Water vapor (H2O) is also significantly worse than CO2 but has natural processes that keep it in a healthy balance between air-water and ground\/ocean-water. The EPA page on greenhouse gasses is a nice starting point for learning about all the different greenhouse gas emissions sources, though there's certainly other great reports - here is another excellent one that has more current and detailed data. Impact is measured in \"CO2e\", or how many tonnes of CO2 the emissions are equal to (e.g. 1 tonne of methane is much more than 1 tonne CO2e). **Many of these problems ARE the fault of \"big oil,\" lack of societal infrastructure, and the active suppression of green technology by those in power. Individual action will not solve many of those problems.** * A whopping 55% of it is from energy production! * Fixing this will require transitions to sustainable energy - solar, wind, hydro, nuclear * We've been dragging our feet here because of massive lobbies by the private energy sector, which (you guessed it) is heavily invested in oil, coal, and natural gas. * You can *reduce* your energy use, but you keeping your lights on isn't what's burning the planet - most energy use is well outside your control. * Another 14% is from road and aviation transport * For many in the States, public transportation is not an option no matter how pure-hearted climate change activists they are. * Electric cars are also a great step in the right direction, but still super out of reach of most people because of things that (you guessed it) could be fixed by the people in control. **BUT! Many of the problems are things that YOU, a citizen in a first-world country, have direct power to fix.** * Livestock is responsible for 6% of emissions, and ain't no fat cats forcing you to eat meat * Beef in particular comes with INSANE emissions - 1 pound of beef carries the same emissions as burning about 3 gallons of gasoline * You can choose to eat a vegan, plant-focused, or fish-based protein diet TODAY and have direct and measurable impact on the climate. * That 14% from transportation is a gray area where you still have a lot of control * Buy local to avoid incurring shipping costs - we do not have sustainable alternatives to flight and cargo ships * Ride a bike, take the bus, buy an electric car. Not everybody has that option, but if *you* do than it doesn't do you any good to bellyache about capitalism online. * 11% of the energy production (8% of the total) is used in residential buildings! * That's right - family homes! Not factories, not warehouses, *homes*. * Run your A\/C less. Get energy efficient lights and appliances. * 3% is from waste. Re-use, recycle where re-using is infeasible, extend lifetimes of goods where recycling is infeasible. In order to solve climate change, we need to resolve 100% of these issues. You can do your part today! You don't have to wait for politicians to ride your bike to work, to grow your own vegetables, to eat vegan, to switch to LED lights in your home, to open your windows instead of running your A\/C, etc. *Your part isn't enough*, we still do need massive overhauls which require the powerful people in control to do their part too - and their part is bigger than your part - but the \"climate change isn't my fault so I won't bother to do anything about it\" is a pretty shitty take.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4468.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkn239","c_root_id_B":"ibkeohb","created_at_utc_A":1654662996,"created_at_utc_B":1654657858,"score_A":15,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"**TL;DR - climate change isn't a single problem with a single cause and a single solution, it's dozens of problems with hundreds of pieces to different parts of the solution and many causes.** Other comments have pointed out that capitalist economies aren't the only ones responsible for climate change - basically every developed country got to where they are on industrialization, which is *massively* harmful to the environment. We'd still be running into the same climate issues if communism or socialism had won out as the major global economic system - arguably *much worse* if it had been Soviet-style communism. **Climate change isn't a single problem.** Let's focus specifically on greenhouse gasses - by far the biggest and most well known is carbon dioxide (CO2), but there are definitely others - methane (CH4) is about 100x worse than CO2, but we also put *way* less of it into the atmosphere. Water vapor (H2O) is also significantly worse than CO2 but has natural processes that keep it in a healthy balance between air-water and ground\/ocean-water. The EPA page on greenhouse gasses is a nice starting point for learning about all the different greenhouse gas emissions sources, though there's certainly other great reports - here is another excellent one that has more current and detailed data. Impact is measured in \"CO2e\", or how many tonnes of CO2 the emissions are equal to (e.g. 1 tonne of methane is much more than 1 tonne CO2e). **Many of these problems ARE the fault of \"big oil,\" lack of societal infrastructure, and the active suppression of green technology by those in power. Individual action will not solve many of those problems.** * A whopping 55% of it is from energy production! * Fixing this will require transitions to sustainable energy - solar, wind, hydro, nuclear * We've been dragging our feet here because of massive lobbies by the private energy sector, which (you guessed it) is heavily invested in oil, coal, and natural gas. * You can *reduce* your energy use, but you keeping your lights on isn't what's burning the planet - most energy use is well outside your control. * Another 14% is from road and aviation transport * For many in the States, public transportation is not an option no matter how pure-hearted climate change activists they are. * Electric cars are also a great step in the right direction, but still super out of reach of most people because of things that (you guessed it) could be fixed by the people in control. **BUT! Many of the problems are things that YOU, a citizen in a first-world country, have direct power to fix.** * Livestock is responsible for 6% of emissions, and ain't no fat cats forcing you to eat meat * Beef in particular comes with INSANE emissions - 1 pound of beef carries the same emissions as burning about 3 gallons of gasoline * You can choose to eat a vegan, plant-focused, or fish-based protein diet TODAY and have direct and measurable impact on the climate. * That 14% from transportation is a gray area where you still have a lot of control * Buy local to avoid incurring shipping costs - we do not have sustainable alternatives to flight and cargo ships * Ride a bike, take the bus, buy an electric car. Not everybody has that option, but if *you* do than it doesn't do you any good to bellyache about capitalism online. * 11% of the energy production (8% of the total) is used in residential buildings! * That's right - family homes! Not factories, not warehouses, *homes*. * Run your A\/C less. Get energy efficient lights and appliances. * 3% is from waste. Re-use, recycle where re-using is infeasible, extend lifetimes of goods where recycling is infeasible. In order to solve climate change, we need to resolve 100% of these issues. You can do your part today! You don't have to wait for politicians to ride your bike to work, to grow your own vegetables, to eat vegan, to switch to LED lights in your home, to open your windows instead of running your A\/C, etc. *Your part isn't enough*, we still do need massive overhauls which require the powerful people in control to do their part too - and their part is bigger than your part - but the \"climate change isn't my fault so I won't bother to do anything about it\" is a pretty shitty take.","human_ref_B":">the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives Even in a socialist, democratically-owned economy, reducing pollution and climate change would still require individual people making - or ACCEPTING - a change in their life. It isn't simply the means of production that are to blame, it is the rate of consumption as well. In my estimation it is true that capitalism encourages and benefits from endlessly increasing consumption - but frankly, from a cultural perspective, many people in the first world have been trained to pursue consumption. If people can't give up their consumption, what benefit would it be to democratize the economy? They'd simply vote to continue exploitative practices so their lifestyle could be maintained. Heck, why would they want to overthrow capitalism in the first place and disrupt the flow of cheap goods and services? At some point, individual behavior HAS to change.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5138.0,"score_ratio":3.75} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkn239","c_root_id_B":"ibk8yzz","created_at_utc_A":1654662996,"created_at_utc_B":1654654860,"score_A":15,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"**TL;DR - climate change isn't a single problem with a single cause and a single solution, it's dozens of problems with hundreds of pieces to different parts of the solution and many causes.** Other comments have pointed out that capitalist economies aren't the only ones responsible for climate change - basically every developed country got to where they are on industrialization, which is *massively* harmful to the environment. We'd still be running into the same climate issues if communism or socialism had won out as the major global economic system - arguably *much worse* if it had been Soviet-style communism. **Climate change isn't a single problem.** Let's focus specifically on greenhouse gasses - by far the biggest and most well known is carbon dioxide (CO2), but there are definitely others - methane (CH4) is about 100x worse than CO2, but we also put *way* less of it into the atmosphere. Water vapor (H2O) is also significantly worse than CO2 but has natural processes that keep it in a healthy balance between air-water and ground\/ocean-water. The EPA page on greenhouse gasses is a nice starting point for learning about all the different greenhouse gas emissions sources, though there's certainly other great reports - here is another excellent one that has more current and detailed data. Impact is measured in \"CO2e\", or how many tonnes of CO2 the emissions are equal to (e.g. 1 tonne of methane is much more than 1 tonne CO2e). **Many of these problems ARE the fault of \"big oil,\" lack of societal infrastructure, and the active suppression of green technology by those in power. Individual action will not solve many of those problems.** * A whopping 55% of it is from energy production! * Fixing this will require transitions to sustainable energy - solar, wind, hydro, nuclear * We've been dragging our feet here because of massive lobbies by the private energy sector, which (you guessed it) is heavily invested in oil, coal, and natural gas. * You can *reduce* your energy use, but you keeping your lights on isn't what's burning the planet - most energy use is well outside your control. * Another 14% is from road and aviation transport * For many in the States, public transportation is not an option no matter how pure-hearted climate change activists they are. * Electric cars are also a great step in the right direction, but still super out of reach of most people because of things that (you guessed it) could be fixed by the people in control. **BUT! Many of the problems are things that YOU, a citizen in a first-world country, have direct power to fix.** * Livestock is responsible for 6% of emissions, and ain't no fat cats forcing you to eat meat * Beef in particular comes with INSANE emissions - 1 pound of beef carries the same emissions as burning about 3 gallons of gasoline * You can choose to eat a vegan, plant-focused, or fish-based protein diet TODAY and have direct and measurable impact on the climate. * That 14% from transportation is a gray area where you still have a lot of control * Buy local to avoid incurring shipping costs - we do not have sustainable alternatives to flight and cargo ships * Ride a bike, take the bus, buy an electric car. Not everybody has that option, but if *you* do than it doesn't do you any good to bellyache about capitalism online. * 11% of the energy production (8% of the total) is used in residential buildings! * That's right - family homes! Not factories, not warehouses, *homes*. * Run your A\/C less. Get energy efficient lights and appliances. * 3% is from waste. Re-use, recycle where re-using is infeasible, extend lifetimes of goods where recycling is infeasible. In order to solve climate change, we need to resolve 100% of these issues. You can do your part today! You don't have to wait for politicians to ride your bike to work, to grow your own vegetables, to eat vegan, to switch to LED lights in your home, to open your windows instead of running your A\/C, etc. *Your part isn't enough*, we still do need massive overhauls which require the powerful people in control to do their part too - and their part is bigger than your part - but the \"climate change isn't my fault so I won't bother to do anything about it\" is a pretty shitty take.","human_ref_B":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8136.0,"score_ratio":7.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk9ehq","c_root_id_B":"ibk8yzz","created_at_utc_A":1654655076,"created_at_utc_B":1654654860,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So I guess I have two main points. First, what\u2019s your alternative? What system of economic, and likely political, organization will solve the problem of climate change? Second, what if Capitalism could solve the issue of climate change? If the incentive structure of Capitalism could serve to combat climate change? If the energy economy could be denuded of oil and natural gas subsidies and those energy sources forced to compete with renewables and nuclear power? Would you support that or would you be more interested in eliminating capitalism?","human_ref_B":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":216.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblowm2","c_root_id_B":"ibkfge5","created_at_utc_A":1654692035,"created_at_utc_B":1654658299,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"You do realize that consumer choices drove corporate choice, right? This is not an exception to capitalism, this is a feature. Consumers are 100% responsible for, and 100% able to change, the behavior of corporations.","human_ref_B":"Depends on the country, in America it's a democratic nation (not a communist) so because of that, the problem is both. Capitalism is driven by demand. Demand is from the people. Democracy is the vote of the \"majority\". Politicians are voted in by the people. So the people have voted politicians to be corrupt, the people continue to buy non environmentally friendly product continue to contribute to the issue. If enough people want the change, then they'd have to change the demand of the product - and the companies will shift. Look at Tesla. EVs have been around for years, but the demand wasn't there. Then came Elon and caused a shift in demand, now all the makers are changing. Toyota hates making EV, they're all about hydrogen, they even made a statement they won't make EVs, but cause of the demand - they're now making EVs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33736.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkb1c6","c_root_id_B":"iblowm2","created_at_utc_A":1654655913,"created_at_utc_B":1654692035,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"So what do you propose as an alternative to capitalism? Most communist countries have track record of facilitating unprecedented environmental disasters, from Chernobyl to toxic waste dumps to draining the Aral sea to the Great Leap Forward to how China is gung-ho with new coal-burning power plants.","human_ref_B":"You do realize that consumer choices drove corporate choice, right? This is not an exception to capitalism, this is a feature. Consumers are 100% responsible for, and 100% able to change, the behavior of corporations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":36122.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblowm2","c_root_id_B":"ibkfuk1","created_at_utc_A":1654692035,"created_at_utc_B":1654658528,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You do realize that consumer choices drove corporate choice, right? This is not an exception to capitalism, this is a feature. Consumers are 100% responsible for, and 100% able to change, the behavior of corporations.","human_ref_B":"Take an honest look at the world. Despite all their lingering problems, the most environmentally sound places in the world are where western capitalism has flourished. Western countries certainly had some dark environmental days, but ONLY relatively free markets have allowed the western world to get to an economic state where we can worry about, and devote resources to environmental concerns. If you live in the US, you have clean drinking water, you don\u2019t live in risk of getting cholera from exposure to untreated sewage, there is more forested acreage than there was 150 years ago, you can swim in almost any lakes or rivers in the country without risking disease, you don\u2019t have to cut down trees and make charcoal for heat (go to Haiti and see what environmental disaster looks like), we aren\u2019t pouring tons and tons of plastic into the ocean, etc. Same for all the places were free markets thrive. Where are people too poor and too consumed by sustenance living to worry about climate change or the environment in general? Only free markets created the ability for you to have enough shelter, food, education, and technology to make this post. Thank your lucky stars.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33507.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblowm2","c_root_id_B":"ibknyd0","created_at_utc_A":1654692035,"created_at_utc_B":1654663607,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You do realize that consumer choices drove corporate choice, right? This is not an exception to capitalism, this is a feature. Consumers are 100% responsible for, and 100% able to change, the behavior of corporations.","human_ref_B":"This is a carefully designed excuse, meant to allow wealthy first worlders to continue to bleed the world dry, without feeling any pressure to change. Nobody can force you to consume. All they do is meet your demands. And your demands, as a first worlder, are completely unsustainable. Ludicrous amounts of red meat, gasoline, electricity, rare earth minerals and imported fruit. Blaming capitalism is like blaming the engine of a speeding car when the driver is flooring it. For any change to be made, the car has to slow down, and the foot lifted off the accelerator. Not a random engine replacement, as if if the economy was using a different engine going 200mph is suddenly safe. There is no sustainable way to raise this many cows. People need to eat less meat. There is no sustainable way to burn this much oil. We need to use less electricity. There is no sustainable way to mine this many rare earth minerals, etc. We certainly don't need is useful excuses and scapegoats that let us continue as we are.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28428.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkeohb","c_root_id_B":"iblowm2","created_at_utc_A":1654657858,"created_at_utc_B":1654692035,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives Even in a socialist, democratically-owned economy, reducing pollution and climate change would still require individual people making - or ACCEPTING - a change in their life. It isn't simply the means of production that are to blame, it is the rate of consumption as well. In my estimation it is true that capitalism encourages and benefits from endlessly increasing consumption - but frankly, from a cultural perspective, many people in the first world have been trained to pursue consumption. If people can't give up their consumption, what benefit would it be to democratize the economy? They'd simply vote to continue exploitative practices so their lifestyle could be maintained. Heck, why would they want to overthrow capitalism in the first place and disrupt the flow of cheap goods and services? At some point, individual behavior HAS to change.","human_ref_B":"You do realize that consumer choices drove corporate choice, right? This is not an exception to capitalism, this is a feature. Consumers are 100% responsible for, and 100% able to change, the behavior of corporations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34177.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblie06","c_root_id_B":"iblowm2","created_at_utc_A":1654688163,"created_at_utc_B":1654692035,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The economic system is not the only problem, but capitalism has the biggest factor. It has to be a joke saying capitalism is driven by demand. Capitalism is based on unlimited growth. In order to grow they need either to sell for more expensive or sell more amounts. Eventually it leads to exploitation of resources and urging you to buy more. If you don't buy, the system would not function. They make you \"demand\" something, which mostly you don't need. Why would smartphones averagely changed every 2 years, especially when smartphones are durable more than ever. Because you need to buy more in order capitalism to survive. They make us buy unnecessary items and waste. Another example is that Europeans are less reliant on cars thanks to better public transportation. Because they didn't let the capital to have it all their way. They didn't entered an infinite loop where capital created the demand -at least not as bad as US, which is a \"more capitalistic\" country. Does that mean that a socialist or communist state would be better with environment automatically? No. But lots of factors are eliminated that I've counted. PS: Electric vehicles are also the biggest scam created by capitalism. The environment friendly solution is public transportation, not EV's!","human_ref_B":"You do realize that consumer choices drove corporate choice, right? This is not an exception to capitalism, this is a feature. Consumers are 100% responsible for, and 100% able to change, the behavior of corporations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3872.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk8yzz","c_root_id_B":"iblowm2","created_at_utc_A":1654654860,"created_at_utc_B":1654692035,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","human_ref_B":"You do realize that consumer choices drove corporate choice, right? This is not an exception to capitalism, this is a feature. Consumers are 100% responsible for, and 100% able to change, the behavior of corporations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":37175.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblowm2","c_root_id_B":"iblltwv","created_at_utc_A":1654692035,"created_at_utc_B":1654690288,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You do realize that consumer choices drove corporate choice, right? This is not an exception to capitalism, this is a feature. Consumers are 100% responsible for, and 100% able to change, the behavior of corporations.","human_ref_B":"> Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. This is misleading. You'll hear stats about how \"70% of climate change is due to just 100 companies\". However, when you dig into the numbers you'll notice that all the worst offenders are oil, gas and coal companies. The reason for that is that the carbon of the oil, gas and coal that those companies sell is counted against them in this accounting. So top 5 polluter Exxon mobile isn't high up on the list because they waste a lot of energy getting gas to the pumps. It's because they're selling gasoline etc. If you cleaned up Exxon mobile tomorrow, there'd be a lot of empty gas stations, blackouts, and cold houses. In terms of Exxon mobile, the only reasonable solution to their emissions is having their customers (both regular people and other businesses) buy greener products that don't use oil or gas. It's utilities replacing a gas power plant with solar + storage. It's people replacing gas furnaces with modern, efficient heat pumps. It's people replacing gas cars with electric cars, bikes, etc. Getting rid of capitalism isn't necessarily going to jump-start that process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1747.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblowm2","c_root_id_B":"iblno26","created_at_utc_A":1654692035,"created_at_utc_B":1654691341,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You do realize that consumer choices drove corporate choice, right? This is not an exception to capitalism, this is a feature. Consumers are 100% responsible for, and 100% able to change, the behavior of corporations.","human_ref_B":">Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years Ok... i will skip the first bit. >companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Companies work for people. We pay them to do that. >No, that [buying environmentaly friendly] just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. I dont see how did you get to that conclusion. If demand for environmentaly friendly products increases, the production of such products will increase, and production of problematic products will decrease. >So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. Wtf are you talking about? Companies being more productive is not what is damaging the environment. It is production process that can be harmfull. And process can always be changed if enough people are willing to pay more for the same product. The rest of your post is just bunch of rambling about how much you hate capitalism. You presented no facts to support your opinion. Im sorry, but it seems to me like you didnt come here to change your opinion, instead you just want an audience for your rambling.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":694.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkeohb","c_root_id_B":"ibkfge5","created_at_utc_A":1654657858,"created_at_utc_B":1654658299,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives Even in a socialist, democratically-owned economy, reducing pollution and climate change would still require individual people making - or ACCEPTING - a change in their life. It isn't simply the means of production that are to blame, it is the rate of consumption as well. In my estimation it is true that capitalism encourages and benefits from endlessly increasing consumption - but frankly, from a cultural perspective, many people in the first world have been trained to pursue consumption. If people can't give up their consumption, what benefit would it be to democratize the economy? They'd simply vote to continue exploitative practices so their lifestyle could be maintained. Heck, why would they want to overthrow capitalism in the first place and disrupt the flow of cheap goods and services? At some point, individual behavior HAS to change.","human_ref_B":"Depends on the country, in America it's a democratic nation (not a communist) so because of that, the problem is both. Capitalism is driven by demand. Demand is from the people. Democracy is the vote of the \"majority\". Politicians are voted in by the people. So the people have voted politicians to be corrupt, the people continue to buy non environmentally friendly product continue to contribute to the issue. If enough people want the change, then they'd have to change the demand of the product - and the companies will shift. Look at Tesla. EVs have been around for years, but the demand wasn't there. Then came Elon and caused a shift in demand, now all the makers are changing. Toyota hates making EV, they're all about hydrogen, they even made a statement they won't make EVs, but cause of the demand - they're now making EVs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":441.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk8yzz","c_root_id_B":"ibkfge5","created_at_utc_A":1654654860,"created_at_utc_B":1654658299,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","human_ref_B":"Depends on the country, in America it's a democratic nation (not a communist) so because of that, the problem is both. Capitalism is driven by demand. Demand is from the people. Democracy is the vote of the \"majority\". Politicians are voted in by the people. So the people have voted politicians to be corrupt, the people continue to buy non environmentally friendly product continue to contribute to the issue. If enough people want the change, then they'd have to change the demand of the product - and the companies will shift. Look at Tesla. EVs have been around for years, but the demand wasn't there. Then came Elon and caused a shift in demand, now all the makers are changing. Toyota hates making EV, they're all about hydrogen, they even made a statement they won't make EVs, but cause of the demand - they're now making EVs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3439.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkb1c6","c_root_id_B":"ibk8yzz","created_at_utc_A":1654655913,"created_at_utc_B":1654654860,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So what do you propose as an alternative to capitalism? Most communist countries have track record of facilitating unprecedented environmental disasters, from Chernobyl to toxic waste dumps to draining the Aral sea to the Great Leap Forward to how China is gung-ho with new coal-burning power plants.","human_ref_B":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1053.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibknyd0","c_root_id_B":"iblsayt","created_at_utc_A":1654663607,"created_at_utc_B":1654693855,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This is a carefully designed excuse, meant to allow wealthy first worlders to continue to bleed the world dry, without feeling any pressure to change. Nobody can force you to consume. All they do is meet your demands. And your demands, as a first worlder, are completely unsustainable. Ludicrous amounts of red meat, gasoline, electricity, rare earth minerals and imported fruit. Blaming capitalism is like blaming the engine of a speeding car when the driver is flooring it. For any change to be made, the car has to slow down, and the foot lifted off the accelerator. Not a random engine replacement, as if if the economy was using a different engine going 200mph is suddenly safe. There is no sustainable way to raise this many cows. People need to eat less meat. There is no sustainable way to burn this much oil. We need to use less electricity. There is no sustainable way to mine this many rare earth minerals, etc. We certainly don't need is useful excuses and scapegoats that let us continue as we are.","human_ref_B":"Your problem is consumerism and not capitalism. Also, stop pretending like it is capitalism's fault if you buy an oversized SUV and burn more oil - nobody forces people to buy things, if everyone wanted only small economic cars, companies would try to produce the best small and most economic cars. In capitalism, what is produced is based on your personal choices. You literally vote with your wallet and the economy responds. If people vote for wasteful garbage, and companies bend over backwards to supply said wasteful garbage, then people are the problem, not the companies.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30248.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblsayt","c_root_id_B":"ibkeohb","created_at_utc_A":1654693855,"created_at_utc_B":1654657858,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Your problem is consumerism and not capitalism. Also, stop pretending like it is capitalism's fault if you buy an oversized SUV and burn more oil - nobody forces people to buy things, if everyone wanted only small economic cars, companies would try to produce the best small and most economic cars. In capitalism, what is produced is based on your personal choices. You literally vote with your wallet and the economy responds. If people vote for wasteful garbage, and companies bend over backwards to supply said wasteful garbage, then people are the problem, not the companies.","human_ref_B":">the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives Even in a socialist, democratically-owned economy, reducing pollution and climate change would still require individual people making - or ACCEPTING - a change in their life. It isn't simply the means of production that are to blame, it is the rate of consumption as well. In my estimation it is true that capitalism encourages and benefits from endlessly increasing consumption - but frankly, from a cultural perspective, many people in the first world have been trained to pursue consumption. If people can't give up their consumption, what benefit would it be to democratize the economy? They'd simply vote to continue exploitative practices so their lifestyle could be maintained. Heck, why would they want to overthrow capitalism in the first place and disrupt the flow of cheap goods and services? At some point, individual behavior HAS to change.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35997.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblsayt","c_root_id_B":"iblie06","created_at_utc_A":1654693855,"created_at_utc_B":1654688163,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Your problem is consumerism and not capitalism. Also, stop pretending like it is capitalism's fault if you buy an oversized SUV and burn more oil - nobody forces people to buy things, if everyone wanted only small economic cars, companies would try to produce the best small and most economic cars. In capitalism, what is produced is based on your personal choices. You literally vote with your wallet and the economy responds. If people vote for wasteful garbage, and companies bend over backwards to supply said wasteful garbage, then people are the problem, not the companies.","human_ref_B":"The economic system is not the only problem, but capitalism has the biggest factor. It has to be a joke saying capitalism is driven by demand. Capitalism is based on unlimited growth. In order to grow they need either to sell for more expensive or sell more amounts. Eventually it leads to exploitation of resources and urging you to buy more. If you don't buy, the system would not function. They make you \"demand\" something, which mostly you don't need. Why would smartphones averagely changed every 2 years, especially when smartphones are durable more than ever. Because you need to buy more in order capitalism to survive. They make us buy unnecessary items and waste. Another example is that Europeans are less reliant on cars thanks to better public transportation. Because they didn't let the capital to have it all their way. They didn't entered an infinite loop where capital created the demand -at least not as bad as US, which is a \"more capitalistic\" country. Does that mean that a socialist or communist state would be better with environment automatically? No. But lots of factors are eliminated that I've counted. PS: Electric vehicles are also the biggest scam created by capitalism. The environment friendly solution is public transportation, not EV's!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5692.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk8yzz","c_root_id_B":"iblsayt","created_at_utc_A":1654654860,"created_at_utc_B":1654693855,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","human_ref_B":"Your problem is consumerism and not capitalism. Also, stop pretending like it is capitalism's fault if you buy an oversized SUV and burn more oil - nobody forces people to buy things, if everyone wanted only small economic cars, companies would try to produce the best small and most economic cars. In capitalism, what is produced is based on your personal choices. You literally vote with your wallet and the economy responds. If people vote for wasteful garbage, and companies bend over backwards to supply said wasteful garbage, then people are the problem, not the companies.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38995.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblsayt","c_root_id_B":"iblltwv","created_at_utc_A":1654693855,"created_at_utc_B":1654690288,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Your problem is consumerism and not capitalism. Also, stop pretending like it is capitalism's fault if you buy an oversized SUV and burn more oil - nobody forces people to buy things, if everyone wanted only small economic cars, companies would try to produce the best small and most economic cars. In capitalism, what is produced is based on your personal choices. You literally vote with your wallet and the economy responds. If people vote for wasteful garbage, and companies bend over backwards to supply said wasteful garbage, then people are the problem, not the companies.","human_ref_B":"> Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. This is misleading. You'll hear stats about how \"70% of climate change is due to just 100 companies\". However, when you dig into the numbers you'll notice that all the worst offenders are oil, gas and coal companies. The reason for that is that the carbon of the oil, gas and coal that those companies sell is counted against them in this accounting. So top 5 polluter Exxon mobile isn't high up on the list because they waste a lot of energy getting gas to the pumps. It's because they're selling gasoline etc. If you cleaned up Exxon mobile tomorrow, there'd be a lot of empty gas stations, blackouts, and cold houses. In terms of Exxon mobile, the only reasonable solution to their emissions is having their customers (both regular people and other businesses) buy greener products that don't use oil or gas. It's utilities replacing a gas power plant with solar + storage. It's people replacing gas furnaces with modern, efficient heat pumps. It's people replacing gas cars with electric cars, bikes, etc. Getting rid of capitalism isn't necessarily going to jump-start that process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3567.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblno26","c_root_id_B":"iblsayt","created_at_utc_A":1654691341,"created_at_utc_B":1654693855,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years Ok... i will skip the first bit. >companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Companies work for people. We pay them to do that. >No, that [buying environmentaly friendly] just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. I dont see how did you get to that conclusion. If demand for environmentaly friendly products increases, the production of such products will increase, and production of problematic products will decrease. >So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. Wtf are you talking about? Companies being more productive is not what is damaging the environment. It is production process that can be harmfull. And process can always be changed if enough people are willing to pay more for the same product. The rest of your post is just bunch of rambling about how much you hate capitalism. You presented no facts to support your opinion. Im sorry, but it seems to me like you didnt come here to change your opinion, instead you just want an audience for your rambling.","human_ref_B":"Your problem is consumerism and not capitalism. Also, stop pretending like it is capitalism's fault if you buy an oversized SUV and burn more oil - nobody forces people to buy things, if everyone wanted only small economic cars, companies would try to produce the best small and most economic cars. In capitalism, what is produced is based on your personal choices. You literally vote with your wallet and the economy responds. If people vote for wasteful garbage, and companies bend over backwards to supply said wasteful garbage, then people are the problem, not the companies.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2514.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkfuk1","c_root_id_B":"ibkeohb","created_at_utc_A":1654658528,"created_at_utc_B":1654657858,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Take an honest look at the world. Despite all their lingering problems, the most environmentally sound places in the world are where western capitalism has flourished. Western countries certainly had some dark environmental days, but ONLY relatively free markets have allowed the western world to get to an economic state where we can worry about, and devote resources to environmental concerns. If you live in the US, you have clean drinking water, you don\u2019t live in risk of getting cholera from exposure to untreated sewage, there is more forested acreage than there was 150 years ago, you can swim in almost any lakes or rivers in the country without risking disease, you don\u2019t have to cut down trees and make charcoal for heat (go to Haiti and see what environmental disaster looks like), we aren\u2019t pouring tons and tons of plastic into the ocean, etc. Same for all the places were free markets thrive. Where are people too poor and too consumed by sustenance living to worry about climate change or the environment in general? Only free markets created the ability for you to have enough shelter, food, education, and technology to make this post. Thank your lucky stars.","human_ref_B":">the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives Even in a socialist, democratically-owned economy, reducing pollution and climate change would still require individual people making - or ACCEPTING - a change in their life. It isn't simply the means of production that are to blame, it is the rate of consumption as well. In my estimation it is true that capitalism encourages and benefits from endlessly increasing consumption - but frankly, from a cultural perspective, many people in the first world have been trained to pursue consumption. If people can't give up their consumption, what benefit would it be to democratize the economy? They'd simply vote to continue exploitative practices so their lifestyle could be maintained. Heck, why would they want to overthrow capitalism in the first place and disrupt the flow of cheap goods and services? At some point, individual behavior HAS to change.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":670.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibkfuk1","c_root_id_B":"ibk8yzz","created_at_utc_A":1654658528,"created_at_utc_B":1654654860,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Take an honest look at the world. Despite all their lingering problems, the most environmentally sound places in the world are where western capitalism has flourished. Western countries certainly had some dark environmental days, but ONLY relatively free markets have allowed the western world to get to an economic state where we can worry about, and devote resources to environmental concerns. If you live in the US, you have clean drinking water, you don\u2019t live in risk of getting cholera from exposure to untreated sewage, there is more forested acreage than there was 150 years ago, you can swim in almost any lakes or rivers in the country without risking disease, you don\u2019t have to cut down trees and make charcoal for heat (go to Haiti and see what environmental disaster looks like), we aren\u2019t pouring tons and tons of plastic into the ocean, etc. Same for all the places were free markets thrive. Where are people too poor and too consumed by sustenance living to worry about climate change or the environment in general? Only free markets created the ability for you to have enough shelter, food, education, and technology to make this post. Thank your lucky stars.","human_ref_B":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3668.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk8yzz","c_root_id_B":"ibknyd0","created_at_utc_A":1654654860,"created_at_utc_B":1654663607,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","human_ref_B":"This is a carefully designed excuse, meant to allow wealthy first worlders to continue to bleed the world dry, without feeling any pressure to change. Nobody can force you to consume. All they do is meet your demands. And your demands, as a first worlder, are completely unsustainable. Ludicrous amounts of red meat, gasoline, electricity, rare earth minerals and imported fruit. Blaming capitalism is like blaming the engine of a speeding car when the driver is flooring it. For any change to be made, the car has to slow down, and the foot lifted off the accelerator. Not a random engine replacement, as if if the economy was using a different engine going 200mph is suddenly safe. There is no sustainable way to raise this many cows. People need to eat less meat. There is no sustainable way to burn this much oil. We need to use less electricity. There is no sustainable way to mine this many rare earth minerals, etc. We certainly don't need is useful excuses and scapegoats that let us continue as we are.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8747.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibk8yzz","c_root_id_B":"ibkeohb","created_at_utc_A":1654654860,"created_at_utc_B":1654657858,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","human_ref_B":">the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives Even in a socialist, democratically-owned economy, reducing pollution and climate change would still require individual people making - or ACCEPTING - a change in their life. It isn't simply the means of production that are to blame, it is the rate of consumption as well. In my estimation it is true that capitalism encourages and benefits from endlessly increasing consumption - but frankly, from a cultural perspective, many people in the first world have been trained to pursue consumption. If people can't give up their consumption, what benefit would it be to democratize the economy? They'd simply vote to continue exploitative practices so their lifestyle could be maintained. Heck, why would they want to overthrow capitalism in the first place and disrupt the flow of cheap goods and services? At some point, individual behavior HAS to change.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2998.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"iblie06","c_root_id_B":"ibk8yzz","created_at_utc_A":1654688163,"created_at_utc_B":1654654860,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The economic system is not the only problem, but capitalism has the biggest factor. It has to be a joke saying capitalism is driven by demand. Capitalism is based on unlimited growth. In order to grow they need either to sell for more expensive or sell more amounts. Eventually it leads to exploitation of resources and urging you to buy more. If you don't buy, the system would not function. They make you \"demand\" something, which mostly you don't need. Why would smartphones averagely changed every 2 years, especially when smartphones are durable more than ever. Because you need to buy more in order capitalism to survive. They make us buy unnecessary items and waste. Another example is that Europeans are less reliant on cars thanks to better public transportation. Because they didn't let the capital to have it all their way. They didn't entered an infinite loop where capital created the demand -at least not as bad as US, which is a \"more capitalistic\" country. Does that mean that a socialist or communist state would be better with environment automatically? No. But lots of factors are eliminated that I've counted. PS: Electric vehicles are also the biggest scam created by capitalism. The environment friendly solution is public transportation, not EV's!","human_ref_B":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33303.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibnyt2k","c_root_id_B":"ibk8yzz","created_at_utc_A":1654728295,"created_at_utc_B":1654654860,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Capitalism is the most efficient system ever devised for exploiting natural resources to meet human demand for things. If you eliminate capitalism, you will still have human demand for things, so you will still have natural resources being exploited just in a less efficient manor. Not less efficient in exploiting the resource, just less efficient in turning the resource into a demand-meeting item. Currently, there is no system for energy conversion that can sustain the amount of human life currently on the planet without causing severe, climate altering consequences. There are only two options for solving climate change. First is the elimination of a huge portion of human life. Second is developing an energy system that can handle the energy needs of an ever increasing human population. If capitalism is eliminated, the chance of option two coming to fruition will be substantially decreased.","human_ref_B":"Well, you\u2019re not wrong but Capitalism is merely shorthand for \u201cpeople are selfish\u201d so if you\u2019ve some solution for that, good luck. Because people simply *are* selfish. If they\u2019re threatened for their selfishness, they\u2019ll simply be selfish by trying to avoid the threat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":73435.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibnyt2k","c_root_id_B":"iblltwv","created_at_utc_A":1654728295,"created_at_utc_B":1654690288,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Capitalism is the most efficient system ever devised for exploiting natural resources to meet human demand for things. If you eliminate capitalism, you will still have human demand for things, so you will still have natural resources being exploited just in a less efficient manor. Not less efficient in exploiting the resource, just less efficient in turning the resource into a demand-meeting item. Currently, there is no system for energy conversion that can sustain the amount of human life currently on the planet without causing severe, climate altering consequences. There are only two options for solving climate change. First is the elimination of a huge portion of human life. Second is developing an energy system that can handle the energy needs of an ever increasing human population. If capitalism is eliminated, the chance of option two coming to fruition will be substantially decreased.","human_ref_B":"> Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. This is misleading. You'll hear stats about how \"70% of climate change is due to just 100 companies\". However, when you dig into the numbers you'll notice that all the worst offenders are oil, gas and coal companies. The reason for that is that the carbon of the oil, gas and coal that those companies sell is counted against them in this accounting. So top 5 polluter Exxon mobile isn't high up on the list because they waste a lot of energy getting gas to the pumps. It's because they're selling gasoline etc. If you cleaned up Exxon mobile tomorrow, there'd be a lot of empty gas stations, blackouts, and cold houses. In terms of Exxon mobile, the only reasonable solution to their emissions is having their customers (both regular people and other businesses) buy greener products that don't use oil or gas. It's utilities replacing a gas power plant with solar + storage. It's people replacing gas furnaces with modern, efficient heat pumps. It's people replacing gas cars with electric cars, bikes, etc. Getting rid of capitalism isn't necessarily going to jump-start that process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":38007.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibnyt2k","c_root_id_B":"iblno26","created_at_utc_A":1654728295,"created_at_utc_B":1654691341,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Capitalism is the most efficient system ever devised for exploiting natural resources to meet human demand for things. If you eliminate capitalism, you will still have human demand for things, so you will still have natural resources being exploited just in a less efficient manor. Not less efficient in exploiting the resource, just less efficient in turning the resource into a demand-meeting item. Currently, there is no system for energy conversion that can sustain the amount of human life currently on the planet without causing severe, climate altering consequences. There are only two options for solving climate change. First is the elimination of a huge portion of human life. Second is developing an energy system that can handle the energy needs of an ever increasing human population. If capitalism is eliminated, the chance of option two coming to fruition will be substantially decreased.","human_ref_B":">Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years Ok... i will skip the first bit. >companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Companies work for people. We pay them to do that. >No, that [buying environmentaly friendly] just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. I dont see how did you get to that conclusion. If demand for environmentaly friendly products increases, the production of such products will increase, and production of problematic products will decrease. >So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. Wtf are you talking about? Companies being more productive is not what is damaging the environment. It is production process that can be harmfull. And process can always be changed if enough people are willing to pay more for the same product. The rest of your post is just bunch of rambling about how much you hate capitalism. You presented no facts to support your opinion. Im sorry, but it seems to me like you didnt come here to change your opinion, instead you just want an audience for your rambling.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":36954.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibnyt2k","c_root_id_B":"iblxcqm","created_at_utc_A":1654728295,"created_at_utc_B":1654696318,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Capitalism is the most efficient system ever devised for exploiting natural resources to meet human demand for things. If you eliminate capitalism, you will still have human demand for things, so you will still have natural resources being exploited just in a less efficient manor. Not less efficient in exploiting the resource, just less efficient in turning the resource into a demand-meeting item. Currently, there is no system for energy conversion that can sustain the amount of human life currently on the planet without causing severe, climate altering consequences. There are only two options for solving climate change. First is the elimination of a huge portion of human life. Second is developing an energy system that can handle the energy needs of an ever increasing human population. If capitalism is eliminated, the chance of option two coming to fruition will be substantially decreased.","human_ref_B":"Excuses excuses... People have power over companies, not the opposite. If the consumers chose the eco friendly option we wouldn't be in this crisis. So it's the consumers fault and not the companies that give them what they ask for. People just don't want to give up traveling or buying too many new clothes, and all the useless luxuries we don't realize we have.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31977.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibnyt2k","c_root_id_B":"ibm3udx","created_at_utc_A":1654728295,"created_at_utc_B":1654699271,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Capitalism is the most efficient system ever devised for exploiting natural resources to meet human demand for things. If you eliminate capitalism, you will still have human demand for things, so you will still have natural resources being exploited just in a less efficient manor. Not less efficient in exploiting the resource, just less efficient in turning the resource into a demand-meeting item. Currently, there is no system for energy conversion that can sustain the amount of human life currently on the planet without causing severe, climate altering consequences. There are only two options for solving climate change. First is the elimination of a huge portion of human life. Second is developing an energy system that can handle the energy needs of an ever increasing human population. If capitalism is eliminated, the chance of option two coming to fruition will be substantially decreased.","human_ref_B":"Capitalism is the only hope for a better future because it is driven by the private sector. Every other system is centralised, and that means that it is guaranteed to fail. Governments are incapable of admitting fault. If a private venture fails, it goes bust and is abandoned. When government fails, the project just gets more money. So if a centralised government office for combating climate change decides we need more solar panels, they will blindly bulldoze a rainforest to get the materials, pump acidic chemicals into the water during the refinement process, and burn multiple tankers worth of fossil fuels to ship the panels into place. Then, when greenhouse gas and pollution are higher than ever, they will do it again with the next rainforest. In a Capitalist system, the moment word get out that Green Energy Inc is bulldozing a forest, the backlash will drive away their clients. They will have to either give up the venture, or change their methods to avoid further backlash. Rivals will see there is a demand for solar panel production that doesn't kill entire ecosystems and try to beat them to market. The end result is that you get your green energy without the horrific cost. Or to put all of that another way: in Capitalism, corruption is a byproduct. In Socialism, corruption IS the product.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29024.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibmd14w","c_root_id_B":"ibnyt2k","created_at_utc_A":1654703242,"created_at_utc_B":1654728295,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Arguably, capitalism is going to spur on the solution to climate change. There is *demand* for green alternatives, energy efficiency, etc. Insomuch as that demand exists, capitalism incentivizes innovation to supply that need. Look at lightbulbs as an example: the cost of producing fluorescent or LED bulbs was prohibitively expensive at first, compared to the old, tried and true incandescent. But some people wanted to be green bad enough to pay $30 a bulb. Then, as they became more popular, they were mass-produced, spreading their static R&D costs over a wider volume, and became cheaper. Then, people who just wanted to save money realized they could pony up $5 for a more efficient bulb and save much more than $5 in electricity over the life of the bulb, so they bought in. Now LEDs are ubiquitous. That is just one example. The same process is occurring with energy production, transportation, computing, etc. Left to its own devices, capitalism (coupled with first-world desire to \u201csave the planet,\u201d throupled with capitalism bringing more people out of extreme poverty and into the first world) will continue to drive innovation in all relevant fields, driving down emissions. As it stands, the fact is that if we covered every inch of the planet with solar panels (and had a way of storing all that energy) the planet would freeze over. If we built massive water towers every few blocks over land and filled them, the sea-level would drop dramatically. If we grew ludicrous amounts of plants and\/or algae, we could convert most of atmospheric CO2 into oxygen. We also have ways of using energy to convert CO2 into useful materials. If solar (or other green energy) can produce the power to convert CO2 into useful materials, with the rest of the energy from peak productive hours being used to pump water into water towers (which can be released during non-peak hours to spin turbines and generate electricity), and all this can be done efficiently enough to make it *profitable*, then it is solved. All we need is for there to be sufficient efficiency in all aspects of production, sufficient demand for both the climate solution and the products converted from CO2, and for all the parts of the solution to align properly.","human_ref_B":"Capitalism is the most efficient system ever devised for exploiting natural resources to meet human demand for things. If you eliminate capitalism, you will still have human demand for things, so you will still have natural resources being exploited just in a less efficient manor. Not less efficient in exploiting the resource, just less efficient in turning the resource into a demand-meeting item. Currently, there is no system for energy conversion that can sustain the amount of human life currently on the planet without causing severe, climate altering consequences. There are only two options for solving climate change. First is the elimination of a huge portion of human life. Second is developing an energy system that can handle the energy needs of an ever increasing human population. If capitalism is eliminated, the chance of option two coming to fruition will be substantially decreased.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25053.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibmqgh5","c_root_id_B":"ibnyt2k","created_at_utc_A":1654708864,"created_at_utc_B":1654728295,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> we must eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. That will work, but only because it will kill insane numbers of people, thereby relieving the world of their aggregate impact.","human_ref_B":"Capitalism is the most efficient system ever devised for exploiting natural resources to meet human demand for things. If you eliminate capitalism, you will still have human demand for things, so you will still have natural resources being exploited just in a less efficient manor. Not less efficient in exploiting the resource, just less efficient in turning the resource into a demand-meeting item. Currently, there is no system for energy conversion that can sustain the amount of human life currently on the planet without causing severe, climate altering consequences. There are only two options for solving climate change. First is the elimination of a huge portion of human life. Second is developing an energy system that can handle the energy needs of an ever increasing human population. If capitalism is eliminated, the chance of option two coming to fruition will be substantially decreased.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19431.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"v7ebuh","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Individual Responsibility in Climate Change is a Scam, Capitalism is the problem Governments and especially corporations have successfully brainwashed us over the past 70 years or so that the only way to solve environmental issues such as pollution and climate change is for people to make changes in their lives. That \"we all need to do our part\". Meanwhile, companies were, are, and will continue to create the vast majority of the pollution out there. Some will say that \"well just buy more environmentally friendly products then\". No, that just won't work. It treats the symptoms, not the problem. Capitalism is not the solution to the world's problems. It *is* the problem. So long as consumption is the main economic driving factor, companies will always need to produce more and in turn we must always consume more. The growth monster must always be fed and it's always the people's fault for it. Hence why we must start eating crickets and living in pods, meanwhile the rich don't change a thing about their lives. They're exempt from the changes since they're the real citizens of the world. Everyone else is just along for the ride, what do they know? Thus, as I see it, a pre-requisite to solving Climate Change and moving towards real sustainability (not some gadgetbahn ripped from the past like electric cars, 3D highways, and hyperloop), we *must* eliminate capitalism as the dominant economic system. The world must unify as one with the UN or another governmental agency working in a triage system to collectively solve the most pressing issues first. These companies responsible (private or public) must be eliminated if we wish to keep the world as we know it now alive. Only working together for the common good of all humankind, not because you expect to make a return on your investment, will we solve Climate Change. It'd also free us from all corrupt companies and governments that keep us enchained to them. They've done irreparable harm to the people and to the environment. They've raped us for the selfish lust for more and more profit. They don't deserve forgiveness, they deserve death as retribution for all the suffering they've imposed. They're monsters in need of an executioner","c_root_id_A":"ibnyt2k","c_root_id_B":"ibncbsz","created_at_utc_A":1654728295,"created_at_utc_B":1654718158,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Capitalism is the most efficient system ever devised for exploiting natural resources to meet human demand for things. If you eliminate capitalism, you will still have human demand for things, so you will still have natural resources being exploited just in a less efficient manor. Not less efficient in exploiting the resource, just less efficient in turning the resource into a demand-meeting item. Currently, there is no system for energy conversion that can sustain the amount of human life currently on the planet without causing severe, climate altering consequences. There are only two options for solving climate change. First is the elimination of a huge portion of human life. Second is developing an energy system that can handle the energy needs of an ever increasing human population. If capitalism is eliminated, the chance of option two coming to fruition will be substantially decreased.","human_ref_B":"Capitalism is continuously creating new technologies (or improving existing tech) that help the consumers get away from fossil fuels. Example 1: Tesla pioneered the current electric car industry and has given a boost to residential solar\/battery power. Example 2: Bell Labs developed the photovoltaic cell that is used in solar panels. Capitalism establishes the competition needed to drive companies to continuously improve their products and create new ones.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10137.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"e2ewf2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Popular religions such as Christianity and Islam, all stem from Cults I am under the belief that all major religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam) all stem from a what we today would consider a cult, and therefore I often find it hypocritical when people who are religious criticize cults for simply being *evil*, *immoral* or *undesirable* and at the same time don\u2019t necessarily think the same of other major religions. For example: A christian who claim that they are not against the existence of Muslims, but also claim that they are against the existence of cults are the people I think to be hypocritical. So before I explain my position I find it necessary to first lay out some of my definitions regarding the terms *religion* and *cult* and how I differentiate them. For these definitions I am using sources such as *Wikipedia* and *Oxford English Dictionary*. **Religion**: A religion is a system of faith often revolving around a particular god or a set of gods, or in some cases a spiritual leader. **Cult**: A cult is often described as a small group of people who practice an *unusual* set of beliefs, either religious or ideological. Now applying these definitions to the real world and how historically religions have formed, I would like to focus my attention to Christianity and Islam\u2019s origin as those are the ones I am most familiar with. **Judaism:** Before moving on to Islam and Christianity, is important to mention Judaism as both Christianity and Islam are \u201cbranches\u201d of Judaism. Jews follow the *Torah* or the first testament. In the *Torah* there is a prophecy relating to a Messiah or savior figure. The Jews today hold the belief that the Messiah is yet to arrive, but they will know who it is once that person arrives at earth. **Christianity:** Christianity formed through the belief that Jesus Christ was the Messiah that the Jew\u2019s have been waiting for. The only way to know who the Messiah is, is through the actions that the proclaimed Messiah takes and enough people believed that the actions taken by Jesus Christ (mainly of being altruistic) were enough to convince them that he was in fact, the Messiah. **Islam:** Islam follows the notion that instead of Jesus Christ being the Messiah, it is instead, Mohammed. Why particularly Mohammed was chosen is for the same reasons Jesus Christ was thought to be the Messiah. Anyways, under these assumptions, it is clear that Jesus and Mohammed, without any historically proven inhumane capabilities, were only decided to be the Messiah under the grounds that the actions and things they said convinced people of it. Under this premise, it is not inconceivable that the Messiah has yet to come (the jew\u2019s being \u201ccorrect\u201d) or that the Messiah will never come. Therefore anyone proclaiming that they are the Messiah in the modern world, and also happen to attract a following similar to that of Jesus or Mohammed, could under the same evidence that people used 2000 years ago, be the real Messiah. Originally, when Jesus Christ started out, his ideas were unorthodox. For example, anyone could become a follower of god. At the time, the only way to become a Jew, was for your mother to be Jewish. Jesus instead believed anyone could accept god into their hearts. He also held the belief that women and men were seen equally before the eyes of god, an idea that was also unpopular at the time. Therefor, when Jesus had gained a following of people, this would follow the definition of a cult, as the idea\u2019s had yet to be clearly established. Through this reasoning I believe that it is unreasonable for modern society to hold the origins of Christianity and Islam in higher regards than that of a cult. If a person today did the same thing as Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, I am certain that today we would label them as a cult leader, possible even diagnose them with a mental illness. Anyways, I have discussed the topic with Muslims, Christians and Atheists alike, and while religious people often disagree with my notion without providing any arguments that I find compelling, most Atheists seem to agree with this proposition. So I was wondering if I could have some insight and perhaps change my views.","c_root_id_A":"f8v5bs6","c_root_id_B":"f8vstb1","created_at_utc_A":1574860002,"created_at_utc_B":1574876574,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Historical figures tend to be put on a pedestal, the bad things they do being erased from their legend while the good things are taking epic proportions. It's even more visible with religions that try to get credibility despite being based on illogical magical premises. As such, they think you can't compare a 21th century con artist to a venerated magician that could transform water to wine and give back sight to blind people. **TL;DR; 1:** Magic is real, my prophet was a real magician, so he is totally different from nowdays gurus \/ cult leaders who has no God-given magic. An atheist will see a wacko that lived 2000 years ago and created a cult that worked well, just like some people are still trying nowadays. The religious guy, on the other side, won't see it that way, because their prophet **was** someone special. Either he was **really** talking with God, or he was an incarnation of God himself, or his son, or things like that. As such, he wasn't teaching \"unusual\" set of beliefs, he was teaching the truth. And even if these beliefs were not majority at that time, they could not be \"unusual\" as they were truth. **TL;DR; 2:** Religious people read the Cult word definition with \"unusual\" meaning \"wrong\", instead of reading it like \"not shared by the majority of people\". That's even reinforced by the fact that \"Cult\" has a pretty bad subtext in current society.","human_ref_B":"I looked at a few other definitions of cult and while I don't disagree with the definition you gave, I don't think the term \"unusual\" is accurate. Some definitions used words like unusual or strange, but more that I found used the words like extreme, sinister, unorthodox and spurious. I think this accurately represents the negative connotation that accompanies the word cult. At the time of the conception of said religions, it's arguable whether or not the general public saw the group's in a negative light. The government and religious leaders certainly did, but I don't know enough about the time period to say either way for the average Joe. And that also raises the argument of if a whole government is corrupt and say that a positive movement is a cult, does that actually make it a cult? Nowadays I'd argue that neither Christianity or Islam are viewed in an overall negative light. But if we are judging whether or not they were cults by the perception of the time they were gaining a following, then you can apply the same logic to movements like civil rights, gay rights, climate change, or any other other progressive movement. They were small groups of people with an unusual and negatively viewed ideology. If we're using the modern perception of the movement, than I'd say that neither religions nor progressive social movements can be defined as originating from a cult.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16572.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"e2ewf2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Popular religions such as Christianity and Islam, all stem from Cults I am under the belief that all major religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam) all stem from a what we today would consider a cult, and therefore I often find it hypocritical when people who are religious criticize cults for simply being *evil*, *immoral* or *undesirable* and at the same time don\u2019t necessarily think the same of other major religions. For example: A christian who claim that they are not against the existence of Muslims, but also claim that they are against the existence of cults are the people I think to be hypocritical. So before I explain my position I find it necessary to first lay out some of my definitions regarding the terms *religion* and *cult* and how I differentiate them. For these definitions I am using sources such as *Wikipedia* and *Oxford English Dictionary*. **Religion**: A religion is a system of faith often revolving around a particular god or a set of gods, or in some cases a spiritual leader. **Cult**: A cult is often described as a small group of people who practice an *unusual* set of beliefs, either religious or ideological. Now applying these definitions to the real world and how historically religions have formed, I would like to focus my attention to Christianity and Islam\u2019s origin as those are the ones I am most familiar with. **Judaism:** Before moving on to Islam and Christianity, is important to mention Judaism as both Christianity and Islam are \u201cbranches\u201d of Judaism. Jews follow the *Torah* or the first testament. In the *Torah* there is a prophecy relating to a Messiah or savior figure. The Jews today hold the belief that the Messiah is yet to arrive, but they will know who it is once that person arrives at earth. **Christianity:** Christianity formed through the belief that Jesus Christ was the Messiah that the Jew\u2019s have been waiting for. The only way to know who the Messiah is, is through the actions that the proclaimed Messiah takes and enough people believed that the actions taken by Jesus Christ (mainly of being altruistic) were enough to convince them that he was in fact, the Messiah. **Islam:** Islam follows the notion that instead of Jesus Christ being the Messiah, it is instead, Mohammed. Why particularly Mohammed was chosen is for the same reasons Jesus Christ was thought to be the Messiah. Anyways, under these assumptions, it is clear that Jesus and Mohammed, without any historically proven inhumane capabilities, were only decided to be the Messiah under the grounds that the actions and things they said convinced people of it. Under this premise, it is not inconceivable that the Messiah has yet to come (the jew\u2019s being \u201ccorrect\u201d) or that the Messiah will never come. Therefore anyone proclaiming that they are the Messiah in the modern world, and also happen to attract a following similar to that of Jesus or Mohammed, could under the same evidence that people used 2000 years ago, be the real Messiah. Originally, when Jesus Christ started out, his ideas were unorthodox. For example, anyone could become a follower of god. At the time, the only way to become a Jew, was for your mother to be Jewish. Jesus instead believed anyone could accept god into their hearts. He also held the belief that women and men were seen equally before the eyes of god, an idea that was also unpopular at the time. Therefor, when Jesus had gained a following of people, this would follow the definition of a cult, as the idea\u2019s had yet to be clearly established. Through this reasoning I believe that it is unreasonable for modern society to hold the origins of Christianity and Islam in higher regards than that of a cult. If a person today did the same thing as Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, I am certain that today we would label them as a cult leader, possible even diagnose them with a mental illness. Anyways, I have discussed the topic with Muslims, Christians and Atheists alike, and while religious people often disagree with my notion without providing any arguments that I find compelling, most Atheists seem to agree with this proposition. So I was wondering if I could have some insight and perhaps change my views.","c_root_id_A":"f8wcwnt","c_root_id_B":"f8v5bs6","created_at_utc_A":1574887972,"created_at_utc_B":1574860002,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You make several inaccurate statements that I thought I'd point out. >Jews follow the\u00a0Torah\u00a0or the first testament. Jews don't follow the \"first testament\". They follow the TaNaKh. For Jews, there is no \"first\" testament, as it's the only testament they accept. The Torah is just the first five books of the Jewish Bible, which is much larger. >Islam follows the notion that instead of Jesus Christ being the Messiah, it is instead, Mohammed. Why particularly Mohammed was chosen is for the same reasons Jesus Christ was thought to be the Messiah. This is clearly false. Muslims don't believe Muhammad to be the messiah. But rather, he was God's messenger to all peoples, like the way Moses was for Jewish people. Muslims accept Jesus as the messiah.","human_ref_B":"Historical figures tend to be put on a pedestal, the bad things they do being erased from their legend while the good things are taking epic proportions. It's even more visible with religions that try to get credibility despite being based on illogical magical premises. As such, they think you can't compare a 21th century con artist to a venerated magician that could transform water to wine and give back sight to blind people. **TL;DR; 1:** Magic is real, my prophet was a real magician, so he is totally different from nowdays gurus \/ cult leaders who has no God-given magic. An atheist will see a wacko that lived 2000 years ago and created a cult that worked well, just like some people are still trying nowadays. The religious guy, on the other side, won't see it that way, because their prophet **was** someone special. Either he was **really** talking with God, or he was an incarnation of God himself, or his son, or things like that. As such, he wasn't teaching \"unusual\" set of beliefs, he was teaching the truth. And even if these beliefs were not majority at that time, they could not be \"unusual\" as they were truth. **TL;DR; 2:** Religious people read the Cult word definition with \"unusual\" meaning \"wrong\", instead of reading it like \"not shared by the majority of people\". That's even reinforced by the fact that \"Cult\" has a pretty bad subtext in current society.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27970.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"e2ewf2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Popular religions such as Christianity and Islam, all stem from Cults I am under the belief that all major religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam) all stem from a what we today would consider a cult, and therefore I often find it hypocritical when people who are religious criticize cults for simply being *evil*, *immoral* or *undesirable* and at the same time don\u2019t necessarily think the same of other major religions. For example: A christian who claim that they are not against the existence of Muslims, but also claim that they are against the existence of cults are the people I think to be hypocritical. So before I explain my position I find it necessary to first lay out some of my definitions regarding the terms *religion* and *cult* and how I differentiate them. For these definitions I am using sources such as *Wikipedia* and *Oxford English Dictionary*. **Religion**: A religion is a system of faith often revolving around a particular god or a set of gods, or in some cases a spiritual leader. **Cult**: A cult is often described as a small group of people who practice an *unusual* set of beliefs, either religious or ideological. Now applying these definitions to the real world and how historically religions have formed, I would like to focus my attention to Christianity and Islam\u2019s origin as those are the ones I am most familiar with. **Judaism:** Before moving on to Islam and Christianity, is important to mention Judaism as both Christianity and Islam are \u201cbranches\u201d of Judaism. Jews follow the *Torah* or the first testament. In the *Torah* there is a prophecy relating to a Messiah or savior figure. The Jews today hold the belief that the Messiah is yet to arrive, but they will know who it is once that person arrives at earth. **Christianity:** Christianity formed through the belief that Jesus Christ was the Messiah that the Jew\u2019s have been waiting for. The only way to know who the Messiah is, is through the actions that the proclaimed Messiah takes and enough people believed that the actions taken by Jesus Christ (mainly of being altruistic) were enough to convince them that he was in fact, the Messiah. **Islam:** Islam follows the notion that instead of Jesus Christ being the Messiah, it is instead, Mohammed. Why particularly Mohammed was chosen is for the same reasons Jesus Christ was thought to be the Messiah. Anyways, under these assumptions, it is clear that Jesus and Mohammed, without any historically proven inhumane capabilities, were only decided to be the Messiah under the grounds that the actions and things they said convinced people of it. Under this premise, it is not inconceivable that the Messiah has yet to come (the jew\u2019s being \u201ccorrect\u201d) or that the Messiah will never come. Therefore anyone proclaiming that they are the Messiah in the modern world, and also happen to attract a following similar to that of Jesus or Mohammed, could under the same evidence that people used 2000 years ago, be the real Messiah. Originally, when Jesus Christ started out, his ideas were unorthodox. For example, anyone could become a follower of god. At the time, the only way to become a Jew, was for your mother to be Jewish. Jesus instead believed anyone could accept god into their hearts. He also held the belief that women and men were seen equally before the eyes of god, an idea that was also unpopular at the time. Therefor, when Jesus had gained a following of people, this would follow the definition of a cult, as the idea\u2019s had yet to be clearly established. Through this reasoning I believe that it is unreasonable for modern society to hold the origins of Christianity and Islam in higher regards than that of a cult. If a person today did the same thing as Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, I am certain that today we would label them as a cult leader, possible even diagnose them with a mental illness. Anyways, I have discussed the topic with Muslims, Christians and Atheists alike, and while religious people often disagree with my notion without providing any arguments that I find compelling, most Atheists seem to agree with this proposition. So I was wondering if I could have some insight and perhaps change my views.","c_root_id_A":"f8wcwnt","c_root_id_B":"f8w3kk1","created_at_utc_A":1574887972,"created_at_utc_B":1574882623,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You make several inaccurate statements that I thought I'd point out. >Jews follow the\u00a0Torah\u00a0or the first testament. Jews don't follow the \"first testament\". They follow the TaNaKh. For Jews, there is no \"first\" testament, as it's the only testament they accept. The Torah is just the first five books of the Jewish Bible, which is much larger. >Islam follows the notion that instead of Jesus Christ being the Messiah, it is instead, Mohammed. Why particularly Mohammed was chosen is for the same reasons Jesus Christ was thought to be the Messiah. This is clearly false. Muslims don't believe Muhammad to be the messiah. But rather, he was God's messenger to all peoples, like the way Moses was for Jewish people. Muslims accept Jesus as the messiah.","human_ref_B":"In that case, all beliefs, whether religious or not started as a cult because all ideas started with one or a few people believing it. Ten thousand people don't simultaneously start thinking, \"Oh, this must be right.\" A person or a group comes up with an idea and the idea spreads from there.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5349.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzb6h2m","c_root_id_B":"hzbaaii","created_at_utc_A":1646398030,"created_at_utc_B":1646400086,"score_A":41,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"This gives Putin no incentive to withdraw as the sanctions take effect. When countries are cut off from global trade, the only real way to expand their economies is through conquest.","human_ref_B":"Economic sanctions for twenty years is a bad plan. There's a famous saying about warfare from Sun Tzu... always leave you enemies a way to retreat because if you do they will take it, if you completely surround them they will fight to the death because they have no other choice. Sanctions should always last only until the desired effect. So rather than a blanket 20 years, it should always be \"Until you pull out of Ukraine\" or some other obvious way that Russia can do something in order to get them lifted.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2056.0,"score_ratio":2.1707317073} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzbaaii","c_root_id_B":"hzb5lfx","created_at_utc_A":1646400086,"created_at_utc_B":1646397524,"score_A":89,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Economic sanctions for twenty years is a bad plan. There's a famous saying about warfare from Sun Tzu... always leave you enemies a way to retreat because if you do they will take it, if you completely surround them they will fight to the death because they have no other choice. Sanctions should always last only until the desired effect. So rather than a blanket 20 years, it should always be \"Until you pull out of Ukraine\" or some other obvious way that Russia can do something in order to get them lifted.","human_ref_B":"During the Gulf war in 1990, sanctions were placed onto Iraq to change Sadam's government. Those sanctions were on the Iraqi government until the second Gulf War. North Korea has been under stiff sanctions since the 50s. When a country wants to do something, sanctions are not going to change their mind.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2562.0,"score_ratio":5.2352941176} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzb6zig","c_root_id_B":"hzbaaii","created_at_utc_A":1646398308,"created_at_utc_B":1646400086,"score_A":4,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"If legislators can pass a law committing to 20 years of sanctions, then they can just as easily repeal such a law - which means it's pretty much worthless as a threat. You're just going to look dumb when you end up repealing it, which is what would have to happen if you wanted to normalise relations in the next 20 years.","human_ref_B":"Economic sanctions for twenty years is a bad plan. There's a famous saying about warfare from Sun Tzu... always leave you enemies a way to retreat because if you do they will take it, if you completely surround them they will fight to the death because they have no other choice. Sanctions should always last only until the desired effect. So rather than a blanket 20 years, it should always be \"Until you pull out of Ukraine\" or some other obvious way that Russia can do something in order to get them lifted.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1778.0,"score_ratio":22.25} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzbaaii","c_root_id_B":"hzb6ovg","created_at_utc_A":1646400086,"created_at_utc_B":1646398146,"score_A":89,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Economic sanctions for twenty years is a bad plan. There's a famous saying about warfare from Sun Tzu... always leave you enemies a way to retreat because if you do they will take it, if you completely surround them they will fight to the death because they have no other choice. Sanctions should always last only until the desired effect. So rather than a blanket 20 years, it should always be \"Until you pull out of Ukraine\" or some other obvious way that Russia can do something in order to get them lifted.","human_ref_B":"By many accounts Putin views himself as untouchable, his yacht is docked in a military base, his assets are safe in Russia, and he has shown that he cares very little, if at all, about the citizens of Russia who are the ones who will suffer under sanctions. Point being that he can pull out of Ukraine, let the sanctions lift but still fight his proxy war using the \"seperatists\" Putin , and his cronies, must be removed from power, that is the only acceptable end game","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1940.0,"score_ratio":44.5} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzb6h2m","c_root_id_B":"hzb5lfx","created_at_utc_A":1646398030,"created_at_utc_B":1646397524,"score_A":41,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"This gives Putin no incentive to withdraw as the sanctions take effect. When countries are cut off from global trade, the only real way to expand their economies is through conquest.","human_ref_B":"During the Gulf war in 1990, sanctions were placed onto Iraq to change Sadam's government. Those sanctions were on the Iraqi government until the second Gulf War. North Korea has been under stiff sanctions since the 50s. When a country wants to do something, sanctions are not going to change their mind.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":506.0,"score_ratio":2.4117647059} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzb6zig","c_root_id_B":"hzccieo","created_at_utc_A":1646398308,"created_at_utc_B":1646416170,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"If legislators can pass a law committing to 20 years of sanctions, then they can just as easily repeal such a law - which means it's pretty much worthless as a threat. You're just going to look dumb when you end up repealing it, which is what would have to happen if you wanted to normalise relations in the next 20 years.","human_ref_B":"Allow me the attempt please to change your view - and\/or give you additional considerations. Who 'pays' for a government? Who 'pays' for a military? Who gets hurt more on a million dollar fine, the one with 80 million or the one with 750,000 only? Should your house get taken away from you if your president (We'll use my President currently, or \"Biden\" just to be clear) makes a bad move? Basically I'm saying: There are a LOT of innocent people in Russia getting RUINED because of his actions. And trust me, I'll never 'defend' his actions. But the US government is largely paid for through taxes by mostly the 'middle class' (the abundant who pay the bulk). Sanctions don't 'hurt' those with a lot of spare cash sitting around - yes, it is no fun to lose money - but ultimately the PEOPLE of Russia will suffer. And what are you hoping to accomplish with sanctions: Do you believe that Putin didn't consider sanctions would be the first worldly response? Are you hoping a Russian citizen commits an assassination of him? When you have morals, and values, and ethics it is nice to feel 'the hero' and want to do some good to stop injustices you see. But Ukraine is a free nation with no allegiances to 'the world' and 'governments' have no authority over anyone save their own citizens. You can only stop unreasonable men with force after all reason has failed. Force whether through sanctions or kinetic (physical) force doesn't differ much - other than 'who gets punished' and 'who dies'. In the case of sanctions the citizenry get punished, in the case of force the military members get punished. It is a sad fact of life that we 'answer' to others - ala our governments. And the 'hero' in me, would definitely want to GO STOP THEM - send EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING - but I know that isn't possible. I am also NOT a polisci person - or much into politics at all. And 'war' is the extreme end of politics. What we can each do to help is learn from this, donate what we can (money, items, words, advice - give it all you've got). Passing laws with lengths is difficult too because situations change and you cannot 'word in' every possible scenario or solution - and laws MUST be as exacting as possible with little subjective deviation. So we (here in the US) pass laws preventing our 'citizens' (or businesses conducted here) whom 'we' have authority over...but largely have no control over those not under our domains. What I do know about politics is you rarely 'show your hand'. It is better for someone to assume all the 'bad stuff' you're willing to do than to actually tell them (giving them a chance to create counters). Also...lastly - and please excuse my ignorance - and maybe someone knowledgeable will reply. But if Biden were to 'go to war' should Jeff Bezos' car be 'taken' from him? What I'm confused on: How does taking away another countries citizens property help 'compel' another nations ruler to do as WE wish? I don't feel a government should be taking it's own citizens property away until they've been convicted of a crime...and certainly NOT another countries citizens stuff either.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17862.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzccieo","c_root_id_B":"hzcbrhp","created_at_utc_A":1646416170,"created_at_utc_B":1646415879,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Allow me the attempt please to change your view - and\/or give you additional considerations. Who 'pays' for a government? Who 'pays' for a military? Who gets hurt more on a million dollar fine, the one with 80 million or the one with 750,000 only? Should your house get taken away from you if your president (We'll use my President currently, or \"Biden\" just to be clear) makes a bad move? Basically I'm saying: There are a LOT of innocent people in Russia getting RUINED because of his actions. And trust me, I'll never 'defend' his actions. But the US government is largely paid for through taxes by mostly the 'middle class' (the abundant who pay the bulk). Sanctions don't 'hurt' those with a lot of spare cash sitting around - yes, it is no fun to lose money - but ultimately the PEOPLE of Russia will suffer. And what are you hoping to accomplish with sanctions: Do you believe that Putin didn't consider sanctions would be the first worldly response? Are you hoping a Russian citizen commits an assassination of him? When you have morals, and values, and ethics it is nice to feel 'the hero' and want to do some good to stop injustices you see. But Ukraine is a free nation with no allegiances to 'the world' and 'governments' have no authority over anyone save their own citizens. You can only stop unreasonable men with force after all reason has failed. Force whether through sanctions or kinetic (physical) force doesn't differ much - other than 'who gets punished' and 'who dies'. In the case of sanctions the citizenry get punished, in the case of force the military members get punished. It is a sad fact of life that we 'answer' to others - ala our governments. And the 'hero' in me, would definitely want to GO STOP THEM - send EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING - but I know that isn't possible. I am also NOT a polisci person - or much into politics at all. And 'war' is the extreme end of politics. What we can each do to help is learn from this, donate what we can (money, items, words, advice - give it all you've got). Passing laws with lengths is difficult too because situations change and you cannot 'word in' every possible scenario or solution - and laws MUST be as exacting as possible with little subjective deviation. So we (here in the US) pass laws preventing our 'citizens' (or businesses conducted here) whom 'we' have authority over...but largely have no control over those not under our domains. What I do know about politics is you rarely 'show your hand'. It is better for someone to assume all the 'bad stuff' you're willing to do than to actually tell them (giving them a chance to create counters). Also...lastly - and please excuse my ignorance - and maybe someone knowledgeable will reply. But if Biden were to 'go to war' should Jeff Bezos' car be 'taken' from him? What I'm confused on: How does taking away another countries citizens property help 'compel' another nations ruler to do as WE wish? I don't feel a government should be taking it's own citizens property away until they've been convicted of a crime...and certainly NOT another countries citizens stuff either.","human_ref_B":"Economic warfare inflicts more pain outside Russia than inside it. The rest of the world needs Russia's gas and other exports. Throwing Russian banks out of SWIFT just weakens SWIFT by making the world invent alternatives. All the institutions now trying to freeze or seize Russia's assets are simply undermining their own authority. Who's going to trust them in the future? Sanctions don't work because they don't take away the problem Russia sought to solve through military action. Russia went into Ukraine to stop the fighting between the Kiev government and the Donbass, to force the Ukrainians to the diplomatic table, get them to finally abide by the 2015 Minsk agreement for restoring stability, and neutralize them as a military threat. They did that knowing they'd have to put up with sanctions, and I expect they'll achieve their goals within a few weeks. It would be crazy for them to reverse course now. And finally, there's no carrot. The west has been using the stick against Russia for decades: sanctions regimes, NATO expansion, false or wildly hypocritical accusations about election meddling and so on, and blaming every American problem on Putin. If Moscow turned its tanks around this afternoon and apologized, would the west end its hostility, stop trying to resurrect the cold war, and finally seek harmonious relations with Russia? There's no reason to imagine it would.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":291.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzb6ovg","c_root_id_B":"hzccieo","created_at_utc_A":1646398146,"created_at_utc_B":1646416170,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"By many accounts Putin views himself as untouchable, his yacht is docked in a military base, his assets are safe in Russia, and he has shown that he cares very little, if at all, about the citizens of Russia who are the ones who will suffer under sanctions. Point being that he can pull out of Ukraine, let the sanctions lift but still fight his proxy war using the \"seperatists\" Putin , and his cronies, must be removed from power, that is the only acceptable end game","human_ref_B":"Allow me the attempt please to change your view - and\/or give you additional considerations. Who 'pays' for a government? Who 'pays' for a military? Who gets hurt more on a million dollar fine, the one with 80 million or the one with 750,000 only? Should your house get taken away from you if your president (We'll use my President currently, or \"Biden\" just to be clear) makes a bad move? Basically I'm saying: There are a LOT of innocent people in Russia getting RUINED because of his actions. And trust me, I'll never 'defend' his actions. But the US government is largely paid for through taxes by mostly the 'middle class' (the abundant who pay the bulk). Sanctions don't 'hurt' those with a lot of spare cash sitting around - yes, it is no fun to lose money - but ultimately the PEOPLE of Russia will suffer. And what are you hoping to accomplish with sanctions: Do you believe that Putin didn't consider sanctions would be the first worldly response? Are you hoping a Russian citizen commits an assassination of him? When you have morals, and values, and ethics it is nice to feel 'the hero' and want to do some good to stop injustices you see. But Ukraine is a free nation with no allegiances to 'the world' and 'governments' have no authority over anyone save their own citizens. You can only stop unreasonable men with force after all reason has failed. Force whether through sanctions or kinetic (physical) force doesn't differ much - other than 'who gets punished' and 'who dies'. In the case of sanctions the citizenry get punished, in the case of force the military members get punished. It is a sad fact of life that we 'answer' to others - ala our governments. And the 'hero' in me, would definitely want to GO STOP THEM - send EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING - but I know that isn't possible. I am also NOT a polisci person - or much into politics at all. And 'war' is the extreme end of politics. What we can each do to help is learn from this, donate what we can (money, items, words, advice - give it all you've got). Passing laws with lengths is difficult too because situations change and you cannot 'word in' every possible scenario or solution - and laws MUST be as exacting as possible with little subjective deviation. So we (here in the US) pass laws preventing our 'citizens' (or businesses conducted here) whom 'we' have authority over...but largely have no control over those not under our domains. What I do know about politics is you rarely 'show your hand'. It is better for someone to assume all the 'bad stuff' you're willing to do than to actually tell them (giving them a chance to create counters). Also...lastly - and please excuse my ignorance - and maybe someone knowledgeable will reply. But if Biden were to 'go to war' should Jeff Bezos' car be 'taken' from him? What I'm confused on: How does taking away another countries citizens property help 'compel' another nations ruler to do as WE wish? I don't feel a government should be taking it's own citizens property away until they've been convicted of a crime...and certainly NOT another countries citizens stuff either.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18024.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzb6zig","c_root_id_B":"hzdtn8o","created_at_utc_A":1646398308,"created_at_utc_B":1646436956,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If legislators can pass a law committing to 20 years of sanctions, then they can just as easily repeal such a law - which means it's pretty much worthless as a threat. You're just going to look dumb when you end up repealing it, which is what would have to happen if you wanted to normalise relations in the next 20 years.","human_ref_B":"Right now you have a large population of young Russians that don\u2019t hate the west or are at least indifferent to the west. They don\u2019t know about the USSR, they listen to our music, west our clothes, and want to be part of the global community. What do you think will happen after decades of economic depression due to actions from the west? Sounds like a great way for their future leaders to radicalize their population against the west and start WW4.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38648.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzb6ovg","c_root_id_B":"hzb6zig","created_at_utc_A":1646398146,"created_at_utc_B":1646398308,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"By many accounts Putin views himself as untouchable, his yacht is docked in a military base, his assets are safe in Russia, and he has shown that he cares very little, if at all, about the citizens of Russia who are the ones who will suffer under sanctions. Point being that he can pull out of Ukraine, let the sanctions lift but still fight his proxy war using the \"seperatists\" Putin , and his cronies, must be removed from power, that is the only acceptable end game","human_ref_B":"If legislators can pass a law committing to 20 years of sanctions, then they can just as easily repeal such a law - which means it's pretty much worthless as a threat. You're just going to look dumb when you end up repealing it, which is what would have to happen if you wanted to normalise relations in the next 20 years.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":162.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzcbrhp","c_root_id_B":"hzdtn8o","created_at_utc_A":1646415879,"created_at_utc_B":1646436956,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Economic warfare inflicts more pain outside Russia than inside it. The rest of the world needs Russia's gas and other exports. Throwing Russian banks out of SWIFT just weakens SWIFT by making the world invent alternatives. All the institutions now trying to freeze or seize Russia's assets are simply undermining their own authority. Who's going to trust them in the future? Sanctions don't work because they don't take away the problem Russia sought to solve through military action. Russia went into Ukraine to stop the fighting between the Kiev government and the Donbass, to force the Ukrainians to the diplomatic table, get them to finally abide by the 2015 Minsk agreement for restoring stability, and neutralize them as a military threat. They did that knowing they'd have to put up with sanctions, and I expect they'll achieve their goals within a few weeks. It would be crazy for them to reverse course now. And finally, there's no carrot. The west has been using the stick against Russia for decades: sanctions regimes, NATO expansion, false or wildly hypocritical accusations about election meddling and so on, and blaming every American problem on Putin. If Moscow turned its tanks around this afternoon and apologized, would the west end its hostility, stop trying to resurrect the cold war, and finally seek harmonious relations with Russia? There's no reason to imagine it would.","human_ref_B":"Right now you have a large population of young Russians that don\u2019t hate the west or are at least indifferent to the west. They don\u2019t know about the USSR, they listen to our music, west our clothes, and want to be part of the global community. What do you think will happen after decades of economic depression due to actions from the west? Sounds like a great way for their future leaders to radicalize their population against the west and start WW4.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21077.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzb6ovg","c_root_id_B":"hzcbrhp","created_at_utc_A":1646398146,"created_at_utc_B":1646415879,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"By many accounts Putin views himself as untouchable, his yacht is docked in a military base, his assets are safe in Russia, and he has shown that he cares very little, if at all, about the citizens of Russia who are the ones who will suffer under sanctions. Point being that he can pull out of Ukraine, let the sanctions lift but still fight his proxy war using the \"seperatists\" Putin , and his cronies, must be removed from power, that is the only acceptable end game","human_ref_B":"Economic warfare inflicts more pain outside Russia than inside it. The rest of the world needs Russia's gas and other exports. Throwing Russian banks out of SWIFT just weakens SWIFT by making the world invent alternatives. All the institutions now trying to freeze or seize Russia's assets are simply undermining their own authority. Who's going to trust them in the future? Sanctions don't work because they don't take away the problem Russia sought to solve through military action. Russia went into Ukraine to stop the fighting between the Kiev government and the Donbass, to force the Ukrainians to the diplomatic table, get them to finally abide by the 2015 Minsk agreement for restoring stability, and neutralize them as a military threat. They did that knowing they'd have to put up with sanctions, and I expect they'll achieve their goals within a few weeks. It would be crazy for them to reverse course now. And finally, there's no carrot. The west has been using the stick against Russia for decades: sanctions regimes, NATO expansion, false or wildly hypocritical accusations about election meddling and so on, and blaming every American problem on Putin. If Moscow turned its tanks around this afternoon and apologized, would the west end its hostility, stop trying to resurrect the cold war, and finally seek harmonious relations with Russia? There's no reason to imagine it would.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17733.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzdtn8o","c_root_id_B":"hzco2cx","created_at_utc_A":1646436956,"created_at_utc_B":1646420698,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Right now you have a large population of young Russians that don\u2019t hate the west or are at least indifferent to the west. They don\u2019t know about the USSR, they listen to our music, west our clothes, and want to be part of the global community. What do you think will happen after decades of economic depression due to actions from the west? Sounds like a great way for their future leaders to radicalize their population against the west and start WW4.","human_ref_B":"Suppose everyone had done this when the USA invaded Iraq. It\u2019s been about 19 years since that happened. Bush has been out for about 13 years\u2026 that\u2019s a long time. The fact is sometimes countries have shitty governments and do shitty things. Sanctions aren\u2019t a great option, they\u2019re the least bad option. Making them longer would punish so many people for so long, without necessarily causing Russia to stop their aggression. It\u2019s not as though Putin is deeply concerned with his people\u2019s welfare\u2026","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16258.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzco2cx","c_root_id_B":"hzb6ovg","created_at_utc_A":1646420698,"created_at_utc_B":1646398146,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Suppose everyone had done this when the USA invaded Iraq. It\u2019s been about 19 years since that happened. Bush has been out for about 13 years\u2026 that\u2019s a long time. The fact is sometimes countries have shitty governments and do shitty things. Sanctions aren\u2019t a great option, they\u2019re the least bad option. Making them longer would punish so many people for so long, without necessarily causing Russia to stop their aggression. It\u2019s not as though Putin is deeply concerned with his people\u2019s welfare\u2026","human_ref_B":"By many accounts Putin views himself as untouchable, his yacht is docked in a military base, his assets are safe in Russia, and he has shown that he cares very little, if at all, about the citizens of Russia who are the ones who will suffer under sanctions. Point being that he can pull out of Ukraine, let the sanctions lift but still fight his proxy war using the \"seperatists\" Putin , and his cronies, must be removed from power, that is the only acceptable end game","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22552.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzb6ovg","c_root_id_B":"hzdtn8o","created_at_utc_A":1646398146,"created_at_utc_B":1646436956,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"By many accounts Putin views himself as untouchable, his yacht is docked in a military base, his assets are safe in Russia, and he has shown that he cares very little, if at all, about the citizens of Russia who are the ones who will suffer under sanctions. Point being that he can pull out of Ukraine, let the sanctions lift but still fight his proxy war using the \"seperatists\" Putin , and his cronies, must be removed from power, that is the only acceptable end game","human_ref_B":"Right now you have a large population of young Russians that don\u2019t hate the west or are at least indifferent to the west. They don\u2019t know about the USSR, they listen to our music, west our clothes, and want to be part of the global community. What do you think will happen after decades of economic depression due to actions from the west? Sounds like a great way for their future leaders to radicalize their population against the west and start WW4.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38810.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzdtn8o","c_root_id_B":"hzcru84","created_at_utc_A":1646436956,"created_at_utc_B":1646422138,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Right now you have a large population of young Russians that don\u2019t hate the west or are at least indifferent to the west. They don\u2019t know about the USSR, they listen to our music, west our clothes, and want to be part of the global community. What do you think will happen after decades of economic depression due to actions from the west? Sounds like a great way for their future leaders to radicalize their population against the west and start WW4.","human_ref_B":"Sanctions may have the opposite effect if they hit the citizen's of a country. After World War I, Germany had to pay very high reparations. This (along with some other decisions, including those implemented by the Weimar Republic's government led to serious economic issues, which allowed a dictator to cease power by creating numerous conspiracy theories.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14818.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"t6hypn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Governments around the world should demand Russia withdraw from Ukraine or else pass laws that commit to economic sanctions on Russia for twenty years. Economic sanctions take time to take effect. Although, Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight, not many believe they will hold out in the long run, even with sanctions. Putin might believe that if or when he takes Ukraine, that the rest of the world will say oh well and lift sanctions. By committing the sanctions to law for twenty years if troops are not withdrawn, it increases the perceived cost for Putin to keep invading. What's more, I think countries should coordinate the deadline, say March 9th, so as to create additional pressure.","c_root_id_A":"hzdtn8o","c_root_id_B":"hzdt2yv","created_at_utc_A":1646436956,"created_at_utc_B":1646436719,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Right now you have a large population of young Russians that don\u2019t hate the west or are at least indifferent to the west. They don\u2019t know about the USSR, they listen to our music, west our clothes, and want to be part of the global community. What do you think will happen after decades of economic depression due to actions from the west? Sounds like a great way for their future leaders to radicalize their population against the west and start WW4.","human_ref_B":"The lessons of history teach against that. The hardship inflicted on Germany after WWI was sufficient to lead to WWII. If Russia is forced to endure the same hardship it will only lead to resentment and more conflict. When this is over and the cause is removed the Russian people shouldn't suffer, if anything we should help their economy to ensure they don't suffer and harbour that toxic resentment we've just discussed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":237.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9esu6","c_root_id_B":"ik9exdp","created_at_utc_A":1660489860,"created_at_utc_B":1660489915,"score_A":5,"score_B":287,"human_ref_A":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","human_ref_B":"Americ spends 3rd most money per student than any country in the world. https:\/\/www.nationmaster.com\/country-info\/stats\/Education\/Spending-per-secondary-school-student The problem cannot possible be the \"lack of funding.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":55.0,"score_ratio":57.4} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9esu6","c_root_id_B":"ik9gxwr","created_at_utc_A":1660489860,"created_at_utc_B":1660490780,"score_A":5,"score_B":114,"human_ref_A":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","human_ref_B":"More money doesn't magically make things higher quality. Some of the best funded districts are the worst","labels":0,"seconds_difference":920.0,"score_ratio":22.8} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9esu6","c_root_id_B":"ik9hh6s","created_at_utc_A":1660489860,"created_at_utc_B":1660491011,"score_A":5,"score_B":92,"human_ref_A":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","human_ref_B":"They say it's always say it's lack of money. Those of us who have been in education will tell you that lack of support from administration, ever increasingly administrative burdens for EDPs, DEI, special needs students, discipline, etc., are the reasons. A local school district had the highest spending per student in the state, and earned the lowest SAT scores. I don't think the district is filled with low IQ students. The people who have been running our urban areas,(we all know who they are), and the Teachers Union bear the brunt of the responsibility for the lack of quality. Why people continue to vote for that party continues to astound me. Plainly said,.teachers just aren't allowed to teach.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1151.0,"score_ratio":18.4} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9i4m9","c_root_id_B":"ik9esu6","created_at_utc_A":1660491294,"created_at_utc_B":1660489860,"score_A":89,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I'm a teacher so I have a biased view, I agree with all your points except for placing the source on the education system. The biggest issue isn't the education system but the lack of investment in being educated. We've geared our schools away from being places of curiosity where kids are invested in finding out new things and into places where we (as you say) create a one size fits all solution to a complex problem and then test kids on whether they can regurgitate the information. However that issue doesn't stem from the education system it stems from our societal lack of investment in educating our population. Parents, the school system, and society don't care if kids are actually learning. They care about their kids being where they are supposed to be and then being sent home safely. School has become glorified baby sitting. Both the school and parents don't fundamentally care whether children know information they care whether their student is getting good grades. Since good grades are tied to being able to regurgitate information but not actually understand schools cant effectively spend their funding on bettering the learning of students instead they must spend it on systems that better their grade point average. Is it the schools fault that grades are what drive money or is it the fault of society seeing grades as an effective qualifier for knowledge? We no longer invite curiosity instead students focus on how they can maximize their grades. In part because there is no reason for them to know all the things we are teaching them. I do actually believe at some point we should allow students to specialize in their education, removing grades and instead getting them to understand and demonstrate understanding; but without demonizing failure. Instead allowing kids to naturally progress through schooling such as allowing them to be in a 5th grade math class but a 2nd grade English class but without the shame attached to it by holding them back a grade or pull out groups. Honestly not every kid needs to know geometry or be deeply invested in WWII but every child should learn how to think for themselves and understand what they struggle with. But because the education system is focused more on grades our funding goes into grades and getting teachers who get students to get better grades. All the while parents would sooner email me to ask how their student can get a better grade rather than ask if their student fundamentally understands or even wants to understand what we're learning about. Core issue being we don't care if kids are educated not that funding is poor and quality is poor (but I do agree those things are also true but they stem from not caring about being educated).","human_ref_B":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1434.0,"score_ratio":17.8} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9ioq5","c_root_id_B":"ik9i4rl","created_at_utc_A":1660491533,"created_at_utc_B":1660491296,"score_A":73,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"It certainly is not a lack of funding. The US spends more per student than most developed nations. I think it's a combination of a culture that doesn't value education and misallocation of resources.","human_ref_B":"> But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. There's no proof of this. It's a common trope that teacher's aren't paid well, but [the salaries alone speak for themselves] (https:\/\/www.nea.org\/resource-library\/teacher-salary-benchmarks). Prior to the pandemic and the post-pandemic inflation, the national average starting salary (for most, this means directly out of school) is nearly $42,000. On average, a teacher with a bachelor's degree is going to make more than $60,000. This is before factoring in benefits, scheduling, etc. We have a teacher shortage, but it's not due to pay. > These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. Why six figures? What makes that the correct wage? Teaching, on *most* levels (thinking pre-k through 6th), is not specialized and probably wouldn't even need a bachelors if we didn't require it. Is six figures for wage, or total compensation? > Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. This is true of *all* mainstream western forms of education. This does not explain why we are the way we are, because other nations aren't dealing with our issues in the same way. This alone tells us it's something else. > For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. Granted, it's been 20-30 years since I've been in an educational setting where I'm learning about basic civics, but the lessons on things like the electoral college were not year-long ones. It was part of a package. If we were to spend a whole year of civics\/social studies on the electoral college and the like, we'd probably understand it better, but at the expense of dozens, if not hundreds, of other important topics. > Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society. Since you don't detail what problems you believe a) we face, and b) are America's in particular, this is difficult to answer. I would argue, however, that having a set amount, or advanced amount, of education does not necessarily translate into knowing how the world works. To use two examples from opposite sides of the spectrum, [Jerome Corsi, a PhD in political science, believes the Obama \"Birther\" conspiracy theory] (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Where%27s_the_Birth_Certificate%3F), and [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who holds a degree in economics, argued that \"unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.\"] (https:\/\/www.politifact.com\/factchecks\/2018\/jul\/18\/alexandria-ocasio-cortez\/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou\/). Ignorance is the source of many, if not most, of our problems, but it's not the fault of the education system. People, psychologically, want to confirm their biases and are less willing to seek out information they disagree with. Social media has made this worse, but it's been a consistent problem for longer than we've been alive. And yes, you can teach critical thinking skills (and we do), but it's the classic problem: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":237.0,"score_ratio":2.2121212121} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9esu6","c_root_id_B":"ik9ioq5","created_at_utc_A":1660489860,"created_at_utc_B":1660491533,"score_A":5,"score_B":73,"human_ref_A":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","human_ref_B":"It certainly is not a lack of funding. The US spends more per student than most developed nations. I think it's a combination of a culture that doesn't value education and misallocation of resources.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1673.0,"score_ratio":14.6} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9lbhy","c_root_id_B":"ik9i4rl","created_at_utc_A":1660492630,"created_at_utc_B":1660491296,"score_A":40,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"The US teacher salaries are higher than the OECD average, pretty significantly. https:\/\/data.oecd.org\/teachers\/teachers-salaries.htm Also, the US ranks fairly well on both PISA and TIMSS international comparisons.","human_ref_B":"> But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. There's no proof of this. It's a common trope that teacher's aren't paid well, but [the salaries alone speak for themselves] (https:\/\/www.nea.org\/resource-library\/teacher-salary-benchmarks). Prior to the pandemic and the post-pandemic inflation, the national average starting salary (for most, this means directly out of school) is nearly $42,000. On average, a teacher with a bachelor's degree is going to make more than $60,000. This is before factoring in benefits, scheduling, etc. We have a teacher shortage, but it's not due to pay. > These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. Why six figures? What makes that the correct wage? Teaching, on *most* levels (thinking pre-k through 6th), is not specialized and probably wouldn't even need a bachelors if we didn't require it. Is six figures for wage, or total compensation? > Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. This is true of *all* mainstream western forms of education. This does not explain why we are the way we are, because other nations aren't dealing with our issues in the same way. This alone tells us it's something else. > For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. Granted, it's been 20-30 years since I've been in an educational setting where I'm learning about basic civics, but the lessons on things like the electoral college were not year-long ones. It was part of a package. If we were to spend a whole year of civics\/social studies on the electoral college and the like, we'd probably understand it better, but at the expense of dozens, if not hundreds, of other important topics. > Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society. Since you don't detail what problems you believe a) we face, and b) are America's in particular, this is difficult to answer. I would argue, however, that having a set amount, or advanced amount, of education does not necessarily translate into knowing how the world works. To use two examples from opposite sides of the spectrum, [Jerome Corsi, a PhD in political science, believes the Obama \"Birther\" conspiracy theory] (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Where%27s_the_Birth_Certificate%3F), and [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who holds a degree in economics, argued that \"unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.\"] (https:\/\/www.politifact.com\/factchecks\/2018\/jul\/18\/alexandria-ocasio-cortez\/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou\/). Ignorance is the source of many, if not most, of our problems, but it's not the fault of the education system. People, psychologically, want to confirm their biases and are less willing to seek out information they disagree with. Social media has made this worse, but it's been a consistent problem for longer than we've been alive. And yes, you can teach critical thinking skills (and we do), but it's the classic problem: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1334.0,"score_ratio":1.2121212121} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9lbhy","c_root_id_B":"ik9iyhl","created_at_utc_A":1660492630,"created_at_utc_B":1660491647,"score_A":40,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"The US teacher salaries are higher than the OECD average, pretty significantly. https:\/\/data.oecd.org\/teachers\/teachers-salaries.htm Also, the US ranks fairly well on both PISA and TIMSS international comparisons.","human_ref_B":"Lots of people have pointed out that more money is not a magic pill. There\u2019s also the idea that many people are not looking to put in the effort to actually get a lot out of their time there. Since it\u2019s compulsory, it inevitably ends up catering to the lowest common denominator. In many ways school is a daycare\/quasi prison for many. This is a big reason why you see so many differences across districts. Differences in test scores are not always tied to better funding etc. Schools that do best are generally in more affluent neighborhoods where other factors (stable family life, pressure and support from parents for their kids to do well) play a large role. You can\u2019t recreate these factors exclusively within the system. At some point, a kid going into a school has to be willing to put in some work to learn and there are many kids actively resisting that. The system just has to make sure it doesn\u2019t break when these kids go through it, so that impacts everything else. It\u2019s just the nature of the institution. Edit: typos","labels":1,"seconds_difference":983.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9esu6","c_root_id_B":"ik9lbhy","created_at_utc_A":1660489860,"created_at_utc_B":1660492630,"score_A":5,"score_B":40,"human_ref_A":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","human_ref_B":"The US teacher salaries are higher than the OECD average, pretty significantly. https:\/\/data.oecd.org\/teachers\/teachers-salaries.htm Also, the US ranks fairly well on both PISA and TIMSS international comparisons.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2770.0,"score_ratio":8.0} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9n6ra","c_root_id_B":"ik9i4rl","created_at_utc_A":1660493403,"created_at_utc_B":1660491296,"score_A":34,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"Can anyone provide data that shows children who have dire circumstances at home still perform really well at school if the schools are well-funded and have rigorous curriculum? In other words, can we rule out the answer simply being students with tough lives just can't learn very well? Inversely, do students with healthy situations at home perform well in school (and later in life) regardless of curriculum? Could we determine pouring resources into schools might not be worth it if the quality of an education is mostly based on the well-being of the child before they walk through the doorway?","human_ref_B":"> But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. There's no proof of this. It's a common trope that teacher's aren't paid well, but [the salaries alone speak for themselves] (https:\/\/www.nea.org\/resource-library\/teacher-salary-benchmarks). Prior to the pandemic and the post-pandemic inflation, the national average starting salary (for most, this means directly out of school) is nearly $42,000. On average, a teacher with a bachelor's degree is going to make more than $60,000. This is before factoring in benefits, scheduling, etc. We have a teacher shortage, but it's not due to pay. > These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. Why six figures? What makes that the correct wage? Teaching, on *most* levels (thinking pre-k through 6th), is not specialized and probably wouldn't even need a bachelors if we didn't require it. Is six figures for wage, or total compensation? > Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. This is true of *all* mainstream western forms of education. This does not explain why we are the way we are, because other nations aren't dealing with our issues in the same way. This alone tells us it's something else. > For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. Granted, it's been 20-30 years since I've been in an educational setting where I'm learning about basic civics, but the lessons on things like the electoral college were not year-long ones. It was part of a package. If we were to spend a whole year of civics\/social studies on the electoral college and the like, we'd probably understand it better, but at the expense of dozens, if not hundreds, of other important topics. > Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society. Since you don't detail what problems you believe a) we face, and b) are America's in particular, this is difficult to answer. I would argue, however, that having a set amount, or advanced amount, of education does not necessarily translate into knowing how the world works. To use two examples from opposite sides of the spectrum, [Jerome Corsi, a PhD in political science, believes the Obama \"Birther\" conspiracy theory] (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Where%27s_the_Birth_Certificate%3F), and [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who holds a degree in economics, argued that \"unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.\"] (https:\/\/www.politifact.com\/factchecks\/2018\/jul\/18\/alexandria-ocasio-cortez\/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou\/). Ignorance is the source of many, if not most, of our problems, but it's not the fault of the education system. People, psychologically, want to confirm their biases and are less willing to seek out information they disagree with. Social media has made this worse, but it's been a consistent problem for longer than we've been alive. And yes, you can teach critical thinking skills (and we do), but it's the classic problem: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2107.0,"score_ratio":1.0303030303} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9n6ra","c_root_id_B":"ik9iyhl","created_at_utc_A":1660493403,"created_at_utc_B":1660491647,"score_A":34,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Can anyone provide data that shows children who have dire circumstances at home still perform really well at school if the schools are well-funded and have rigorous curriculum? In other words, can we rule out the answer simply being students with tough lives just can't learn very well? Inversely, do students with healthy situations at home perform well in school (and later in life) regardless of curriculum? Could we determine pouring resources into schools might not be worth it if the quality of an education is mostly based on the well-being of the child before they walk through the doorway?","human_ref_B":"Lots of people have pointed out that more money is not a magic pill. There\u2019s also the idea that many people are not looking to put in the effort to actually get a lot out of their time there. Since it\u2019s compulsory, it inevitably ends up catering to the lowest common denominator. In many ways school is a daycare\/quasi prison for many. This is a big reason why you see so many differences across districts. Differences in test scores are not always tied to better funding etc. Schools that do best are generally in more affluent neighborhoods where other factors (stable family life, pressure and support from parents for their kids to do well) play a large role. You can\u2019t recreate these factors exclusively within the system. At some point, a kid going into a school has to be willing to put in some work to learn and there are many kids actively resisting that. The system just has to make sure it doesn\u2019t break when these kids go through it, so that impacts everything else. It\u2019s just the nature of the institution. Edit: typos","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1756.0,"score_ratio":2.125} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9esu6","c_root_id_B":"ik9n6ra","created_at_utc_A":1660489860,"created_at_utc_B":1660493403,"score_A":5,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","human_ref_B":"Can anyone provide data that shows children who have dire circumstances at home still perform really well at school if the schools are well-funded and have rigorous curriculum? In other words, can we rule out the answer simply being students with tough lives just can't learn very well? Inversely, do students with healthy situations at home perform well in school (and later in life) regardless of curriculum? Could we determine pouring resources into schools might not be worth it if the quality of an education is mostly based on the well-being of the child before they walk through the doorway?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3543.0,"score_ratio":6.8} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9i4rl","c_root_id_B":"ik9esu6","created_at_utc_A":1660491296,"created_at_utc_B":1660489860,"score_A":33,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. There's no proof of this. It's a common trope that teacher's aren't paid well, but [the salaries alone speak for themselves] (https:\/\/www.nea.org\/resource-library\/teacher-salary-benchmarks). Prior to the pandemic and the post-pandemic inflation, the national average starting salary (for most, this means directly out of school) is nearly $42,000. On average, a teacher with a bachelor's degree is going to make more than $60,000. This is before factoring in benefits, scheduling, etc. We have a teacher shortage, but it's not due to pay. > These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. Why six figures? What makes that the correct wage? Teaching, on *most* levels (thinking pre-k through 6th), is not specialized and probably wouldn't even need a bachelors if we didn't require it. Is six figures for wage, or total compensation? > Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. This is true of *all* mainstream western forms of education. This does not explain why we are the way we are, because other nations aren't dealing with our issues in the same way. This alone tells us it's something else. > For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. Granted, it's been 20-30 years since I've been in an educational setting where I'm learning about basic civics, but the lessons on things like the electoral college were not year-long ones. It was part of a package. If we were to spend a whole year of civics\/social studies on the electoral college and the like, we'd probably understand it better, but at the expense of dozens, if not hundreds, of other important topics. > Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society. Since you don't detail what problems you believe a) we face, and b) are America's in particular, this is difficult to answer. I would argue, however, that having a set amount, or advanced amount, of education does not necessarily translate into knowing how the world works. To use two examples from opposite sides of the spectrum, [Jerome Corsi, a PhD in political science, believes the Obama \"Birther\" conspiracy theory] (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Where%27s_the_Birth_Certificate%3F), and [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who holds a degree in economics, argued that \"unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.\"] (https:\/\/www.politifact.com\/factchecks\/2018\/jul\/18\/alexandria-ocasio-cortez\/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou\/). Ignorance is the source of many, if not most, of our problems, but it's not the fault of the education system. People, psychologically, want to confirm their biases and are less willing to seek out information they disagree with. Social media has made this worse, but it's been a consistent problem for longer than we've been alive. And yes, you can teach critical thinking skills (and we do), but it's the classic problem: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.","human_ref_B":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1436.0,"score_ratio":6.6} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9esu6","c_root_id_B":"ik9iyhl","created_at_utc_A":1660489860,"created_at_utc_B":1660491647,"score_A":5,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","human_ref_B":"Lots of people have pointed out that more money is not a magic pill. There\u2019s also the idea that many people are not looking to put in the effort to actually get a lot out of their time there. Since it\u2019s compulsory, it inevitably ends up catering to the lowest common denominator. In many ways school is a daycare\/quasi prison for many. This is a big reason why you see so many differences across districts. Differences in test scores are not always tied to better funding etc. Schools that do best are generally in more affluent neighborhoods where other factors (stable family life, pressure and support from parents for their kids to do well) play a large role. You can\u2019t recreate these factors exclusively within the system. At some point, a kid going into a school has to be willing to put in some work to learn and there are many kids actively resisting that. The system just has to make sure it doesn\u2019t break when these kids go through it, so that impacts everything else. It\u2019s just the nature of the institution. Edit: typos","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1787.0,"score_ratio":3.2} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ik9esu6","c_root_id_B":"ik9vgpp","created_at_utc_A":1660489860,"created_at_utc_B":1660496785,"score_A":5,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","human_ref_B":"As someone who's taught public school, I think poverty (and systemic inequality) is a much greater factor than specific funding for education. Part of the challenge of teaching at a low socioeconomic status school is that the students can be more challenging and less interested in the materials. But often that occurs because their parents are trapped in cycles of poverty: in and out of prison, have significant drug\/alcohol problems, are getting evicted, need help caring for other kids, etc etc. (these aren't exclusive to low SES schools, just higher rates) If you want better education results, you need a higher minimum wage, universal healthcare, assistance for parents, affordable housing etc. All of that takes pressure off parents which creates better home environments for kids and sets them up to succeed in school and, eventually, life. But as it is, school comes second to survival and it's hard to blame the kids for that. We just all suffer for it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6925.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"wo8egx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: the majority of America\u2019s problems are directly tied to our education system\u2019s lack of funding and quality. To start, I\u2019m not saying that America has the worst education system in the world. I do, however, think it is bad for today\u2019s children and the children of the past, and were seriously starting to suffer for it now. But first, I want to talk about teachers and counseling. There is a lack of teachers and counselors in many states across the country because they simply aren\u2019t being paid enough. These people raise the children of America, the least they can receive in return is 6 figures. How can you expect people to put effort into such an important job when they\u2019re not paid enough? Problem 2: this system kills creativity and imagination. A lot of the problems that people highlighted during online school are also present in in-person schooling\u2014one-size-fits-all, boring, not fit for kids who want to do things instead of listening. Because of this, people don\u2019t listen very often in school, and those who do often don\u2019t fully process the 8 hours of information thrown in their face by people who, as they say, \u201cdon\u2019t get paid enough for this.\u201d Result: you end up with a lot of kids who don\u2019t know much at all. These issues, however, become a SERIOUS problem when these mishandled children enter the real world. For example, many people don\u2019t know how the electoral college works or congress, yet we spent a year going over this in high school. A lot of people think that the president can make laws (I am not joking), and even more people think that the president directly controls the economy. My year in AP Gov has taught me how these things work, but there are people that our system left behind in my classes who will grow up and enter society without these important bits of info. Many people can\u2019t do basic algebra\/arithmetic consistently and reliably when it\u2019s fundamental to mathematics and most jobs. These are just a few examples, but by far one of the worst ones is a general misunderstanding of history. There are people who deny the existence of the party switch, for a single example. I won\u2019t go too far into this because I don\u2019t want to disrespect people\u2019s political views by accident, but I think the general point is there. Of course, the most MOST explicit example is climate change\/global warming, where people will deny things that I learned in elementary school, but I think I\u2019ve listed enough examples now. Easiest way to change my view: show me something else that causes more problems in today\u2019s society.","c_root_id_A":"ika5ykp","c_root_id_B":"ik9esu6","created_at_utc_A":1660501002,"created_at_utc_B":1660489860,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s more that schools generally refuse to enforce standards for achievement. About 20% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. https:\/\/www.google.com\/amp\/s\/fee.org\/articles\/did-public-schools-really-improve-american-literacy\/amp If you can\u2019t even read a textbook, how could you possibly have learned anything past like 3rd grade? If the school actually cared about educating students, these kids should have been held back until they at least got a grasp on the material for that grade. They didn\u2019t, because it makes the school look bad and they\u2019d have to deal with complaints from parents and whatever rabble rousers see it in the news. These are extreme cases, but they represent a bigger problem of how schools just pass people through without making sure they actually learn anything.","human_ref_B":"Is it really lack of funding or quality? For example. We dumb down high school big time. We do this because we want everyone to pass. No matter how incapable or lazy they are. Is this an issue that pertains to quality? Well yeah sorta. But it's more about rhetoric and philosophy. Are we teaching kids to be intelligent or are we simply trying to pump people through with as many graduates as possible. Regardless of whether a graduate is really capable of anything. Our schools are very well funded for the most part. The spending is very frivolous. As is the case with almost any publicly ran organization. Schools just get more attention because most of us are forced to interact with them. You don't notice how wasteful the court system is if you never have any reason to be in court. Really the solution is privatization. Have competitive schools that produce quality graduates.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11142.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"36kxtf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: While PirateBay is a very handy site to use I ultimately see it as illegal\/unethical. So, let me start off by saying that I have used thePirateBay a number of times to download programs, ebooks, software, ect. However, I view it as something that is \"good while it lasts,\" meaning that I will use it until it ends but when it does end will see that it had too. It is sort of like when a store wrongly prices a product and I can by it cheaper. I will by the product, but when the store realizes and corrects the prices I come to the conclusion that the prices were wrong and the correct price is 100% fair. To mer there is no debate on whether the lower price was fair; it was not! In order for the store to make a profit and employ workers they need to have the correct prices. Also if they dont correct the price they may have to stop selling the item from the manufacturer and that may cost more jobs. Jobs that normal people like you and I have. It does not matter how much the manufacturer\/store makes in a year, it is still their money that they can use for raises, expansion, health care, ect. Could you imagine if we lived in a world where your wealth made it ok for people to steal from? A world where I could come to your house and steal your car because you have too much money anyways, and dont need that much money. IMHO the whole freedom of speech argument is a total cop out. To me that is a totally non issues. It reminds me of when slave states in the US turned slavery into a \"states rights\" issues when it is clearly a racism and money issues. Also, if I was to make a website on how to steal senior citizens social security but label it as \"educational only\" I would 100% see the merits of it getting pulled down. Technically it is \"free speech\" but it is speech aimed solely at stealing someone's hard work. There is also the argument that because thepiartebay does not host any files and only directs, they are in the clear. However, there have been countless times that someone has been convicted of a crime for being an acquaintance, and some states even have bystander laws to punish people for not stopping a crime. If I was to drive my buddy to a bar house where he kills a man, than I will be indicted on aiding a murder. Sure I may have the right to drive where I want to but that argument will never hold up in court. Even though I only directed to murderer to the scene and will be held partially responsible Love to hear your thoughts! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"creznun","c_root_id_B":"crezr6n","created_at_utc_A":1432105232,"created_at_utc_B":1432105568,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You know that TPB has also a lot of legal content on it? P2P is soo good for certain kinds of file sharing that several companies offer torrent links for their products. Hell, humblebundle gives you the option to download some games you paid for as torrent! Regardless of that, piracy also helps \"dead\" material, stuff no one is distributing or caring about and that would disappear forever if not for the pirates. Last but not least, copyright laws nowadays are ridiculous: they were created in a completely different environment and even then they were crappy. Piracy forces the industry and the governments to take notice of that.","human_ref_B":"I think having to pay for a movie before I see it, or for a game before I play it are bad practices. It makes media creators invest a lot in marketing and trailers and less in the actual content that I pay for.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":336.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"36kxtf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: While PirateBay is a very handy site to use I ultimately see it as illegal\/unethical. So, let me start off by saying that I have used thePirateBay a number of times to download programs, ebooks, software, ect. However, I view it as something that is \"good while it lasts,\" meaning that I will use it until it ends but when it does end will see that it had too. It is sort of like when a store wrongly prices a product and I can by it cheaper. I will by the product, but when the store realizes and corrects the prices I come to the conclusion that the prices were wrong and the correct price is 100% fair. To mer there is no debate on whether the lower price was fair; it was not! In order for the store to make a profit and employ workers they need to have the correct prices. Also if they dont correct the price they may have to stop selling the item from the manufacturer and that may cost more jobs. Jobs that normal people like you and I have. It does not matter how much the manufacturer\/store makes in a year, it is still their money that they can use for raises, expansion, health care, ect. Could you imagine if we lived in a world where your wealth made it ok for people to steal from? A world where I could come to your house and steal your car because you have too much money anyways, and dont need that much money. IMHO the whole freedom of speech argument is a total cop out. To me that is a totally non issues. It reminds me of when slave states in the US turned slavery into a \"states rights\" issues when it is clearly a racism and money issues. Also, if I was to make a website on how to steal senior citizens social security but label it as \"educational only\" I would 100% see the merits of it getting pulled down. Technically it is \"free speech\" but it is speech aimed solely at stealing someone's hard work. There is also the argument that because thepiartebay does not host any files and only directs, they are in the clear. However, there have been countless times that someone has been convicted of a crime for being an acquaintance, and some states even have bystander laws to punish people for not stopping a crime. If I was to drive my buddy to a bar house where he kills a man, than I will be indicted on aiding a murder. Sure I may have the right to drive where I want to but that argument will never hold up in court. Even though I only directed to murderer to the scene and will be held partially responsible Love to hear your thoughts! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"creznun","c_root_id_B":"crf601v","created_at_utc_A":1432105232,"created_at_utc_B":1432128204,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You know that TPB has also a lot of legal content on it? P2P is soo good for certain kinds of file sharing that several companies offer torrent links for their products. Hell, humblebundle gives you the option to download some games you paid for as torrent! Regardless of that, piracy also helps \"dead\" material, stuff no one is distributing or caring about and that would disappear forever if not for the pirates. Last but not least, copyright laws nowadays are ridiculous: they were created in a completely different environment and even then they were crappy. Piracy forces the industry and the governments to take notice of that.","human_ref_B":"What you describe is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. They are different crimes and should be thought of as such. Your analogy of stealing someone's car is not at all apt.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22972.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"36kxtf","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: While PirateBay is a very handy site to use I ultimately see it as illegal\/unethical. So, let me start off by saying that I have used thePirateBay a number of times to download programs, ebooks, software, ect. However, I view it as something that is \"good while it lasts,\" meaning that I will use it until it ends but when it does end will see that it had too. It is sort of like when a store wrongly prices a product and I can by it cheaper. I will by the product, but when the store realizes and corrects the prices I come to the conclusion that the prices were wrong and the correct price is 100% fair. To mer there is no debate on whether the lower price was fair; it was not! In order for the store to make a profit and employ workers they need to have the correct prices. Also if they dont correct the price they may have to stop selling the item from the manufacturer and that may cost more jobs. Jobs that normal people like you and I have. It does not matter how much the manufacturer\/store makes in a year, it is still their money that they can use for raises, expansion, health care, ect. Could you imagine if we lived in a world where your wealth made it ok for people to steal from? A world where I could come to your house and steal your car because you have too much money anyways, and dont need that much money. IMHO the whole freedom of speech argument is a total cop out. To me that is a totally non issues. It reminds me of when slave states in the US turned slavery into a \"states rights\" issues when it is clearly a racism and money issues. Also, if I was to make a website on how to steal senior citizens social security but label it as \"educational only\" I would 100% see the merits of it getting pulled down. Technically it is \"free speech\" but it is speech aimed solely at stealing someone's hard work. There is also the argument that because thepiartebay does not host any files and only directs, they are in the clear. However, there have been countless times that someone has been convicted of a crime for being an acquaintance, and some states even have bystander laws to punish people for not stopping a crime. If I was to drive my buddy to a bar house where he kills a man, than I will be indicted on aiding a murder. Sure I may have the right to drive where I want to but that argument will never hold up in court. Even though I only directed to murderer to the scene and will be held partially responsible Love to hear your thoughts! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"crfbygx","c_root_id_B":"creznun","created_at_utc_A":1432138692,"created_at_utc_B":1432105232,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It's not illegal. They don't provide any illegal files. They only index torrents, which may or may not be illegal on an individual basis themselves, but the links to the torrents themselves are not illegal.","human_ref_B":"You know that TPB has also a lot of legal content on it? P2P is soo good for certain kinds of file sharing that several companies offer torrent links for their products. Hell, humblebundle gives you the option to download some games you paid for as torrent! Regardless of that, piracy also helps \"dead\" material, stuff no one is distributing or caring about and that would disappear forever if not for the pirates. Last but not least, copyright laws nowadays are ridiculous: they were created in a completely different environment and even then they were crappy. Piracy forces the industry and the governments to take notice of that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33460.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"qc9vkn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If you have taken a secret to your deathbed you should take it to your grave. I have put significant thought into trying to quantify the consequences of a secret in a long term relationship. This all started after reading an old newspaper article involving a pregnant unwed teenager in the 50's\/60's; a long holiday to an 'aunt'; the forced adoption of the baby; forcing the pain away and later marrying and having children; the adult child rocking up unannounced on the doorstep looking for answers and love; the confession to the family of the traumatic adoption; and, the subsequent breakdown of the marriage because the revelation caused the husband (and 2 out of 3 kids) to doubt their entire world and her place in it. The devastation of the family unit struck me as sad and unnecessary and I wanted to try to understand. I wanted to see if there was a broader and universal truth (Kantian for the interested) around betrayal and doubts that could be applied to all sorts of secrets in previously solid and unquestioned relationships. I tried to keep the definition of secret broad in my mind to give room for nuance and empathy for both parties if possible. I thought of the loving and dutiful wife that had an abortion in the early days of the relationship; the partner that was squirreling away money.... or debt; an undisclosed and traumatic past; the person who cheated and had genuine regrets. I searched peer reviewed research, online psychology articles, interrogated friends and family. I read a lot of personal opinions on social All of that listening and thinking (and researching), over a few weeks and through some rabbit holes led me to an unexpected but solid conclusion. And that is this: If a secret has been taken to the deathbed, it should be taken to the grave. I came to believe that the deathbed confession would surely be cowardly and selfish with the primary motive to relieve guilt. Therefore only likely to leave hurt and betrayal in a situation where the only person able to explain is dead. That's cruel and not about honesty. The arguments against my conclusion are easy to define. The aggrieved may find out another way and be robbed of the right to an explanation... therefore confess. The aggrieved should not be deceived a moment longer so, imminent death notwithstanding, confess. Previous assessments of unnecessary hurt caused were self-justifying and all pretences should be put aside in these final moments, so confess. Yet all of these consequences and beliefs seem to my mind to reinforce the truth of my conclusion. For every universal belief the existence of a counter argument doesn't lessen the fundamental truth but merely serves as a reminder that we are human and fallible. So, my view is clearly stated in the subject title. Can you change it?","c_root_id_A":"hhemy6l","c_root_id_B":"hheo8pr","created_at_utc_A":1634761442,"created_at_utc_B":1634761961,"score_A":5,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"> Therefore only likely to leave hurt and betrayal in a situation where the only person able to explain is dead. I think that largely only applies if the guilt is surrounding the relationships with the people attending your deathbed. For example, a deathbed confession about being involved in an assassination attempt, I don't really see that being something they shouldn't divulge. They're not keeping that to avoid hurting their loved ones, they're keeping secret to avoid personal consequences which can no longer touch them once they're on their deathbed.","human_ref_B":"\"Remember how Bob went to jail for murder, but always said he was innocent? I was the real killer. I've kept the evidence in my locked desk all these years. I'm not confessing because I'm a good person and want forgiveness. I just don't need Bob to remain in jail anymore now that there's no risk of it coming back to hurt me.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":519.0,"score_ratio":4.6} {"post_id":"qc9vkn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If you have taken a secret to your deathbed you should take it to your grave. I have put significant thought into trying to quantify the consequences of a secret in a long term relationship. This all started after reading an old newspaper article involving a pregnant unwed teenager in the 50's\/60's; a long holiday to an 'aunt'; the forced adoption of the baby; forcing the pain away and later marrying and having children; the adult child rocking up unannounced on the doorstep looking for answers and love; the confession to the family of the traumatic adoption; and, the subsequent breakdown of the marriage because the revelation caused the husband (and 2 out of 3 kids) to doubt their entire world and her place in it. The devastation of the family unit struck me as sad and unnecessary and I wanted to try to understand. I wanted to see if there was a broader and universal truth (Kantian for the interested) around betrayal and doubts that could be applied to all sorts of secrets in previously solid and unquestioned relationships. I tried to keep the definition of secret broad in my mind to give room for nuance and empathy for both parties if possible. I thought of the loving and dutiful wife that had an abortion in the early days of the relationship; the partner that was squirreling away money.... or debt; an undisclosed and traumatic past; the person who cheated and had genuine regrets. I searched peer reviewed research, online psychology articles, interrogated friends and family. I read a lot of personal opinions on social All of that listening and thinking (and researching), over a few weeks and through some rabbit holes led me to an unexpected but solid conclusion. And that is this: If a secret has been taken to the deathbed, it should be taken to the grave. I came to believe that the deathbed confession would surely be cowardly and selfish with the primary motive to relieve guilt. Therefore only likely to leave hurt and betrayal in a situation where the only person able to explain is dead. That's cruel and not about honesty. The arguments against my conclusion are easy to define. The aggrieved may find out another way and be robbed of the right to an explanation... therefore confess. The aggrieved should not be deceived a moment longer so, imminent death notwithstanding, confess. Previous assessments of unnecessary hurt caused were self-justifying and all pretences should be put aside in these final moments, so confess. Yet all of these consequences and beliefs seem to my mind to reinforce the truth of my conclusion. For every universal belief the existence of a counter argument doesn't lessen the fundamental truth but merely serves as a reminder that we are human and fallible. So, my view is clearly stated in the subject title. Can you change it?","c_root_id_A":"hheo8ls","c_root_id_B":"hheo8pr","created_at_utc_A":1634761959,"created_at_utc_B":1634761961,"score_A":3,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":">I came to believe that the deathbed confession would surely be cowardly and selfish with the primary motive to relieve guilt. Death does a good job of relieving guilt as well. I'm pretty sure that's not the primary motivation.","human_ref_B":"\"Remember how Bob went to jail for murder, but always said he was innocent? I was the real killer. I've kept the evidence in my locked desk all these years. I'm not confessing because I'm a good person and want forgiveness. I just don't need Bob to remain in jail anymore now that there's no risk of it coming back to hurt me.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667} {"post_id":"h7bsa0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: There is nothing Trump could do to lose the support of the majority of his base. My view is that most of Trump's support base is too uneducated, indoctrinated, paranoid, and stubborn to be turned off by literally anything that Trump could do. They already come up with excuses left and right to justify his behavior, so it's no stretch that they'll continue to do so. If he were to commit a seriously heinous crime, supporters could easily brush it aside as \"fake news\" and completely deny its truthfulness. Certainly \\*some\\* people would turn away, but I believe the majority of his base would not be swayed. He's already clearly done many heinous things and committed many crimes, none of which seem to deter most of his supporters in the slightest. Please, bring me an optimistic viewpoint.","c_root_id_A":"ftrg772","c_root_id_B":"ftrg5cg","created_at_utc_A":1591927462,"created_at_utc_B":1591927431,"score_A":79,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Come out of the closet, approve of abortion, support China, support socialism.","human_ref_B":"President Trump's support comes, in part, from the perception by those in his base that he is a \"winner\". President Trump could lose a large portion of his support by losing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31.0,"score_ratio":9.875} {"post_id":"h7bsa0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: There is nothing Trump could do to lose the support of the majority of his base. My view is that most of Trump's support base is too uneducated, indoctrinated, paranoid, and stubborn to be turned off by literally anything that Trump could do. They already come up with excuses left and right to justify his behavior, so it's no stretch that they'll continue to do so. If he were to commit a seriously heinous crime, supporters could easily brush it aside as \"fake news\" and completely deny its truthfulness. Certainly \\*some\\* people would turn away, but I believe the majority of his base would not be swayed. He's already clearly done many heinous things and committed many crimes, none of which seem to deter most of his supporters in the slightest. Please, bring me an optimistic viewpoint.","c_root_id_A":"ftrftzq","c_root_id_B":"ftrg772","created_at_utc_A":1591927240,"created_at_utc_B":1591927462,"score_A":2,"score_B":79,"human_ref_A":"He could come out of the closet. That would definitely scare a lot of them off.","human_ref_B":"Come out of the closet, approve of abortion, support China, support socialism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":222.0,"score_ratio":39.5} {"post_id":"h7bsa0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: There is nothing Trump could do to lose the support of the majority of his base. My view is that most of Trump's support base is too uneducated, indoctrinated, paranoid, and stubborn to be turned off by literally anything that Trump could do. They already come up with excuses left and right to justify his behavior, so it's no stretch that they'll continue to do so. If he were to commit a seriously heinous crime, supporters could easily brush it aside as \"fake news\" and completely deny its truthfulness. Certainly \\*some\\* people would turn away, but I believe the majority of his base would not be swayed. He's already clearly done many heinous things and committed many crimes, none of which seem to deter most of his supporters in the slightest. Please, bring me an optimistic viewpoint.","c_root_id_A":"ftrqycz","c_root_id_B":"ftrg5cg","created_at_utc_A":1591934302,"created_at_utc_B":1591927431,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"This could be said of any major politician and the people that support them. The base will support the candidate no matter what. Every election boils down to the 20% to 25% of the independents. Both major parties can count of their 30% or so support. I would like to think that if the media accurately reported on him instead of just making him out to be the bogeyman, then maybe people will start to stop supporting him. Every news outlet reports on what he does or says as the absolute worst thing only to be proven wrong later. Not excusing his behavior, but the media has a part to play in his base supporting him.","human_ref_B":"President Trump's support comes, in part, from the perception by those in his base that he is a \"winner\". President Trump could lose a large portion of his support by losing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6871.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"h7bsa0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: There is nothing Trump could do to lose the support of the majority of his base. My view is that most of Trump's support base is too uneducated, indoctrinated, paranoid, and stubborn to be turned off by literally anything that Trump could do. They already come up with excuses left and right to justify his behavior, so it's no stretch that they'll continue to do so. If he were to commit a seriously heinous crime, supporters could easily brush it aside as \"fake news\" and completely deny its truthfulness. Certainly \\*some\\* people would turn away, but I believe the majority of his base would not be swayed. He's already clearly done many heinous things and committed many crimes, none of which seem to deter most of his supporters in the slightest. Please, bring me an optimistic viewpoint.","c_root_id_A":"ftrg5cg","c_root_id_B":"ftrftzq","created_at_utc_A":1591927431,"created_at_utc_B":1591927240,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"President Trump's support comes, in part, from the perception by those in his base that he is a \"winner\". President Trump could lose a large portion of his support by losing.","human_ref_B":"He could come out of the closet. That would definitely scare a lot of them off.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":191.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"h7bsa0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: There is nothing Trump could do to lose the support of the majority of his base. My view is that most of Trump's support base is too uneducated, indoctrinated, paranoid, and stubborn to be turned off by literally anything that Trump could do. They already come up with excuses left and right to justify his behavior, so it's no stretch that they'll continue to do so. If he were to commit a seriously heinous crime, supporters could easily brush it aside as \"fake news\" and completely deny its truthfulness. Certainly \\*some\\* people would turn away, but I believe the majority of his base would not be swayed. He's already clearly done many heinous things and committed many crimes, none of which seem to deter most of his supporters in the slightest. Please, bring me an optimistic viewpoint.","c_root_id_A":"ftrqycz","c_root_id_B":"ftrh6gs","created_at_utc_A":1591934302,"created_at_utc_B":1591928065,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"This could be said of any major politician and the people that support them. The base will support the candidate no matter what. Every election boils down to the 20% to 25% of the independents. Both major parties can count of their 30% or so support. I would like to think that if the media accurately reported on him instead of just making him out to be the bogeyman, then maybe people will start to stop supporting him. Every news outlet reports on what he does or says as the absolute worst thing only to be proven wrong later. Not excusing his behavior, but the media has a part to play in his base supporting him.","human_ref_B":"If Trump loses the support of conservative media he loses the majority of his base aswell. Basically he is done for if he pisses of someone like Rupert Murdoch enough to take action. Most of his supporters get most of their news from Fox so even if Trump supported abortion or whatever he could get away with it as long as Fox News changes the narrative around that to his benefit, just like he got away with openly supporting Russia and russian election interference.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6237.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"h7bsa0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: There is nothing Trump could do to lose the support of the majority of his base. My view is that most of Trump's support base is too uneducated, indoctrinated, paranoid, and stubborn to be turned off by literally anything that Trump could do. They already come up with excuses left and right to justify his behavior, so it's no stretch that they'll continue to do so. If he were to commit a seriously heinous crime, supporters could easily brush it aside as \"fake news\" and completely deny its truthfulness. Certainly \\*some\\* people would turn away, but I believe the majority of his base would not be swayed. He's already clearly done many heinous things and committed many crimes, none of which seem to deter most of his supporters in the slightest. Please, bring me an optimistic viewpoint.","c_root_id_A":"ftrftzq","c_root_id_B":"ftrqycz","created_at_utc_A":1591927240,"created_at_utc_B":1591934302,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"He could come out of the closet. That would definitely scare a lot of them off.","human_ref_B":"This could be said of any major politician and the people that support them. The base will support the candidate no matter what. Every election boils down to the 20% to 25% of the independents. Both major parties can count of their 30% or so support. I would like to think that if the media accurately reported on him instead of just making him out to be the bogeyman, then maybe people will start to stop supporting him. Every news outlet reports on what he does or says as the absolute worst thing only to be proven wrong later. Not excusing his behavior, but the media has a part to play in his base supporting him.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7062.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"h7bsa0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: There is nothing Trump could do to lose the support of the majority of his base. My view is that most of Trump's support base is too uneducated, indoctrinated, paranoid, and stubborn to be turned off by literally anything that Trump could do. They already come up with excuses left and right to justify his behavior, so it's no stretch that they'll continue to do so. If he were to commit a seriously heinous crime, supporters could easily brush it aside as \"fake news\" and completely deny its truthfulness. Certainly \\*some\\* people would turn away, but I believe the majority of his base would not be swayed. He's already clearly done many heinous things and committed many crimes, none of which seem to deter most of his supporters in the slightest. Please, bring me an optimistic viewpoint.","c_root_id_A":"ftrh6gs","c_root_id_B":"ftrftzq","created_at_utc_A":1591928065,"created_at_utc_B":1591927240,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If Trump loses the support of conservative media he loses the majority of his base aswell. Basically he is done for if he pisses of someone like Rupert Murdoch enough to take action. Most of his supporters get most of their news from Fox so even if Trump supported abortion or whatever he could get away with it as long as Fox News changes the narrative around that to his benefit, just like he got away with openly supporting Russia and russian election interference.","human_ref_B":"He could come out of the closet. That would definitely scare a lot of them off.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":825.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"h7bsa0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: There is nothing Trump could do to lose the support of the majority of his base. My view is that most of Trump's support base is too uneducated, indoctrinated, paranoid, and stubborn to be turned off by literally anything that Trump could do. They already come up with excuses left and right to justify his behavior, so it's no stretch that they'll continue to do so. If he were to commit a seriously heinous crime, supporters could easily brush it aside as \"fake news\" and completely deny its truthfulness. Certainly \\*some\\* people would turn away, but I believe the majority of his base would not be swayed. He's already clearly done many heinous things and committed many crimes, none of which seem to deter most of his supporters in the slightest. Please, bring me an optimistic viewpoint.","c_root_id_A":"fukvuwp","c_root_id_B":"ftrftzq","created_at_utc_A":1591951527,"created_at_utc_B":1591927240,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Yes, he can. He has done things that I myself call him out for, being someone who voted for him. It's looking like I'll vote for him again, based on the fact that he has done good things, I don't like Joe Biden, and then there's posts like these. I don't think you're oblivious enough to realise that flaming half the country with \"you're stubborn, indoctrinated, uneducated, stupid, etc.\" Is not the way to go. I think you did that on purpose. Pretty sure, I can say the same about you if I twist things enough. Anyway, if Trump starts going apeshit on the Second Amendment, or verbally attacking churchgoers then that will hurt his base a lot.","human_ref_B":"He could come out of the closet. That would definitely scare a lot of them off.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24287.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"h7bsa0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: There is nothing Trump could do to lose the support of the majority of his base. My view is that most of Trump's support base is too uneducated, indoctrinated, paranoid, and stubborn to be turned off by literally anything that Trump could do. They already come up with excuses left and right to justify his behavior, so it's no stretch that they'll continue to do so. If he were to commit a seriously heinous crime, supporters could easily brush it aside as \"fake news\" and completely deny its truthfulness. Certainly \\*some\\* people would turn away, but I believe the majority of his base would not be swayed. He's already clearly done many heinous things and committed many crimes, none of which seem to deter most of his supporters in the slightest. Please, bring me an optimistic viewpoint.","c_root_id_A":"ful2r3f","c_root_id_B":"ftrftzq","created_at_utc_A":1591958462,"created_at_utc_B":1591927240,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A big part of his appeal is exactly that he is unapologetic about his behaviour and doesn't bend the knee. I'm convinced he would lose a lot of support if he starts doing that.","human_ref_B":"He could come out of the closet. That would definitely scare a lot of them off.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31222.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"zbeqce","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Using an AdBlocker is not immoral if you aren't buying stuff from ads anyways People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them. Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message. I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not. Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.","c_root_id_A":"iyqr8u5","c_root_id_B":"iyqqnhi","created_at_utc_A":1670071840,"created_at_utc_B":1670071439,"score_A":26,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Project manager for ad marketing in the video game industry here, ad block absolutely can impact the revenue of a content creator. We pay content creators for their name, image, and likeness to create and distribute media through an inventory of space that we purchase on websites and in the ad breaks of video content - sort of like buying air time on the radio. What we pay to content creators is based on the value we negotiate with their brand, which includes number of factors including demographic, content, reach, region, etc. When we place ads on websites, in pre-roll, or in ad breaks of videos, we have very sophisticated tracking tools that tell us exactly how many people are seeing and engaging with the content, which we compare to the volume we've purchased and placed, and depending on the platform can calculate the ad activity: from fully watching the content, skipping it, leaving the video, and yes, never actually seeing the content because a backend system blocked it (ie. Ad Block). This is important data for us to know what are the most profitable and engaging inventory spaces to purchase. Thus, if we detect a discrepancy in a content creators ad inventory performance that leads us to believe their viewers are blocking our ads, it devalues their brand, which translates to fewer or lower cost contracts in the future. TL\/DR: We know when people use ad block, and pay content creators less if you do.","human_ref_B":"You dismiss brand awareness but I'm not sure I fully buy anyone is completely immune to it. When you're at the grocery store you're dealing with hundreds of choices in a trip, what to buy but also what not to buy. Any influence towards a specific product no matter how small matters, even on a subconscious level. On your second point an ad view is many times the actual value of the ad, not the click. It gets back to brand awareness again. McDonald's wants to show their new burger to the world, the click is just a secondary bonus for them but the view is their goal. This is how advertising works in every other format outside of the web. Ultimately that ad view does help the content creator in some small way and it's the only way many small creators can get started.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":401.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667} {"post_id":"zbeqce","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Using an AdBlocker is not immoral if you aren't buying stuff from ads anyways People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them. Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message. I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not. Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.","c_root_id_A":"iyqv6lq","c_root_id_B":"iyqqnhi","created_at_utc_A":1670074298,"created_at_utc_B":1670071439,"score_A":17,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I think your missing 2 things here. 1) you seem positive m your brain is different from every other brain - unaffected by ads. That may be true - but the advertisers are paying for the chance to try. 2) you seem to think websites operate for free and only make money off selling items; but they are selling advertising space (typically compensated by views of an ad). It's like a company putting an ad in the newspapers; the newspaper got their cut the day they printed it. If the ads never actually showed up though then nobody would pay for that.","human_ref_B":"You dismiss brand awareness but I'm not sure I fully buy anyone is completely immune to it. When you're at the grocery store you're dealing with hundreds of choices in a trip, what to buy but also what not to buy. Any influence towards a specific product no matter how small matters, even on a subconscious level. On your second point an ad view is many times the actual value of the ad, not the click. It gets back to brand awareness again. McDonald's wants to show their new burger to the world, the click is just a secondary bonus for them but the view is their goal. This is how advertising works in every other format outside of the web. Ultimately that ad view does help the content creator in some small way and it's the only way many small creators can get started.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2859.0,"score_ratio":1.4166666667} {"post_id":"zbeqce","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Using an AdBlocker is not immoral if you aren't buying stuff from ads anyways People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them. Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message. I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not. Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.","c_root_id_A":"iyrdlmb","c_root_id_B":"iyr2e4s","created_at_utc_A":1670083232,"created_at_utc_B":1670078186,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators How is it stealing if the viewer doesn't get that revenue? I have no reason to watch ads, and saying that not doing it is stealing from the creator is like saying that not giving change to a beggar is stealing from him.","human_ref_B":"I work in advertising. You kind of got everything wrong in this process. I pay for numbers. In essence, I'm paying per set of eyeballs. AdBlockers remove a set of eyeballs. Take away eyeballs and I take away money. Your idea about devaluing ads by never clicking on them has nothing to do with anything from a financial point of view. I have already accounted for people like you in my ad buy. But if website\/network X isn't at a critical mass of eyeballs, I'm not buying. You also think that the fact that you don't click on something means that the ad didn't work. I have a million retargeting campaigns that are solely designed to keep showing someone a product over and over until they get some familiarity and might consider that product. You don't have to be aware I'm doing this\u2014most people aren't. When you buy a car, the websites and dealerships you visit are based on years of marketing, SEO, and brand awareness that is invisible to everyday people. The more people block those marketing attempts, the less that platform is worth to me and the more I'll take my money elsewhere. You might think that advertising to 9 people where 2 will buy is no different (or maybe even better) than advertising to 10 people where 2 will buy but advertising is generally a business of scale. At some point, as the audience dwindles, it's not worth my time to be on the network because soon that 2:9 will become 1:6 and 0:3. One person doing what you do is meaningless like one person shoplifting. But hundreds, thousands, and millions are how companies go bankrupt. You want to use an AdBlocker, go for it, but you're absolutely hurting the site you're visiting.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5046.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"zbeqce","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Using an AdBlocker is not immoral if you aren't buying stuff from ads anyways People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them. Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message. I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not. Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.","c_root_id_A":"iyrdlmb","c_root_id_B":"iyqzqg8","created_at_utc_A":1670083232,"created_at_utc_B":1670076823,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators How is it stealing if the viewer doesn't get that revenue? I have no reason to watch ads, and saying that not doing it is stealing from the creator is like saying that not giving change to a beggar is stealing from him.","human_ref_B":"Are you then willing to pay for content via subscription or donation? Much content that you enjoy takes a lot of time to produce and without an income people won\u2019t have the time to produce it because they\u2019ll have to work somewhere else.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6409.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"zbeqce","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Using an AdBlocker is not immoral if you aren't buying stuff from ads anyways People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them. Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message. I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not. Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.","c_root_id_A":"iyr76e4","c_root_id_B":"iyrdlmb","created_at_utc_A":1670080492,"created_at_utc_B":1670083232,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"People thought adblockers were immoral?","human_ref_B":">People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators How is it stealing if the viewer doesn't get that revenue? I have no reason to watch ads, and saying that not doing it is stealing from the creator is like saying that not giving change to a beggar is stealing from him.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2740.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"zbeqce","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Using an AdBlocker is not immoral if you aren't buying stuff from ads anyways People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them. Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message. I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not. Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.","c_root_id_A":"iyr2e4s","c_root_id_B":"iyrrrax","created_at_utc_A":1670078186,"created_at_utc_B":1670088985,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I work in advertising. You kind of got everything wrong in this process. I pay for numbers. In essence, I'm paying per set of eyeballs. AdBlockers remove a set of eyeballs. Take away eyeballs and I take away money. Your idea about devaluing ads by never clicking on them has nothing to do with anything from a financial point of view. I have already accounted for people like you in my ad buy. But if website\/network X isn't at a critical mass of eyeballs, I'm not buying. You also think that the fact that you don't click on something means that the ad didn't work. I have a million retargeting campaigns that are solely designed to keep showing someone a product over and over until they get some familiarity and might consider that product. You don't have to be aware I'm doing this\u2014most people aren't. When you buy a car, the websites and dealerships you visit are based on years of marketing, SEO, and brand awareness that is invisible to everyday people. The more people block those marketing attempts, the less that platform is worth to me and the more I'll take my money elsewhere. You might think that advertising to 9 people where 2 will buy is no different (or maybe even better) than advertising to 10 people where 2 will buy but advertising is generally a business of scale. At some point, as the audience dwindles, it's not worth my time to be on the network because soon that 2:9 will become 1:6 and 0:3. One person doing what you do is meaningless like one person shoplifting. But hundreds, thousands, and millions are how companies go bankrupt. You want to use an AdBlocker, go for it, but you're absolutely hurting the site you're visiting.","human_ref_B":"Ads are immoral","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10799.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"zbeqce","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Using an AdBlocker is not immoral if you aren't buying stuff from ads anyways People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them. Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message. I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not. Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.","c_root_id_A":"iyrrrax","c_root_id_B":"iyqzqg8","created_at_utc_A":1670088985,"created_at_utc_B":1670076823,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Ads are immoral","human_ref_B":"Are you then willing to pay for content via subscription or donation? Much content that you enjoy takes a lot of time to produce and without an income people won\u2019t have the time to produce it because they\u2019ll have to work somewhere else.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12162.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"zbeqce","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Using an AdBlocker is not immoral if you aren't buying stuff from ads anyways People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them. Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message. I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not. Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.","c_root_id_A":"iyrrrax","c_root_id_B":"iyrk5cy","created_at_utc_A":1670088985,"created_at_utc_B":1670085908,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Ads are immoral","human_ref_B":"I personally don\u2019t care if it\u2019s ethical. There\u2019s ads on everything, they pop up and make website unusable sometimes. Half the time the ads I see are malicious, remember the ads from the mid 2000\u2019s that were shooting games? I skip over ads in videos too. I hate ads. I have YouTube premium, and subscribe to creators I like on patreon. But I hate ads.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3077.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"zbeqce","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Using an AdBlocker is not immoral if you aren't buying stuff from ads anyways People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them. Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message. I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not. Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.","c_root_id_A":"iyrrrax","c_root_id_B":"iyr76e4","created_at_utc_A":1670088985,"created_at_utc_B":1670080492,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Ads are immoral","human_ref_B":"People thought adblockers were immoral?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8493.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"zbeqce","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Using an AdBlocker is not immoral if you aren't buying stuff from ads anyways People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them. Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message. I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not. Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.","c_root_id_A":"iyr76e4","c_root_id_B":"iyrk5cy","created_at_utc_A":1670080492,"created_at_utc_B":1670085908,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"People thought adblockers were immoral?","human_ref_B":"I personally don\u2019t care if it\u2019s ethical. There\u2019s ads on everything, they pop up and make website unusable sometimes. Half the time the ads I see are malicious, remember the ads from the mid 2000\u2019s that were shooting games? I skip over ads in videos too. I hate ads. I have YouTube premium, and subscribe to creators I like on patreon. But I hate ads.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5416.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itd973b","c_root_id_B":"itd8l4p","created_at_utc_A":1666466948,"created_at_utc_B":1666466684,"score_A":15,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Almost 19% of Unemployment payouts were improper. And that only includes ones they know about. There are tons of people claiming benefits like these who fly under the radar. https:\/\/www.dol.gov\/agencies\/eta\/unemployment-insurance-payment-accuracy","human_ref_B":"Look at the date of that article. April 2020. Something pretty significant happened later that year and into the next... one that swamped state unemployment agencies across the nation and caused a *significant* increase of improper payments to the tune of *billions* of dollars. While not *all* of that was due to fraud, much of it was... and while entitlement fraud may not be a significantly *persistant* problem, it is certainly a problem of great significance when greater opportunity to defraud the government present themselves. That isn't to say that many people don't disingenuously raise the spectre of fraud to demonize the needy and make it more difficult to access welfare programs, that's not the argument I'm making, it's just that fraud is or at least can become a problem.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":264.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itd973b","c_root_id_B":"itd81w3","created_at_utc_A":1666466948,"created_at_utc_B":1666466459,"score_A":15,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Almost 19% of Unemployment payouts were improper. And that only includes ones they know about. There are tons of people claiming benefits like these who fly under the radar. https:\/\/www.dol.gov\/agencies\/eta\/unemployment-insurance-payment-accuracy","human_ref_B":"What, in your view, would be a high enough percentage of abuse to constitute a \"significant\" problem? Do you consider public trust in a system to be an important value? This is leading, as you can infer, to a follow up question about whether, basically, visible cheating of a system, even if not a \"significant\" percentage, has negative effects in people's trust of a system.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":489.0,"score_ratio":7.5} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itduwab","c_root_id_B":"itd8l4p","created_at_utc_A":1666476140,"created_at_utc_B":1666466684,"score_A":12,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Let's say you qualify for 6 months of unemployment checks, but you know that you can probably find a job within 2 months. You relax for the first 4 months and only start taking your job search seriously afterwards. Legally, you're not commiting fraud, but you're still taking advantage of unemployment insurance in a way that it's not intended. A lot of people might not even be conscious of doing this.","human_ref_B":"Look at the date of that article. April 2020. Something pretty significant happened later that year and into the next... one that swamped state unemployment agencies across the nation and caused a *significant* increase of improper payments to the tune of *billions* of dollars. While not *all* of that was due to fraud, much of it was... and while entitlement fraud may not be a significantly *persistant* problem, it is certainly a problem of great significance when greater opportunity to defraud the government present themselves. That isn't to say that many people don't disingenuously raise the spectre of fraud to demonize the needy and make it more difficult to access welfare programs, that's not the argument I'm making, it's just that fraud is or at least can become a problem.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9456.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itduwab","c_root_id_B":"itd81w3","created_at_utc_A":1666476140,"created_at_utc_B":1666466459,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Let's say you qualify for 6 months of unemployment checks, but you know that you can probably find a job within 2 months. You relax for the first 4 months and only start taking your job search seriously afterwards. Legally, you're not commiting fraud, but you're still taking advantage of unemployment insurance in a way that it's not intended. A lot of people might not even be conscious of doing this.","human_ref_B":"What, in your view, would be a high enough percentage of abuse to constitute a \"significant\" problem? Do you consider public trust in a system to be an important value? This is leading, as you can infer, to a follow up question about whether, basically, visible cheating of a system, even if not a \"significant\" percentage, has negative effects in people's trust of a system.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9681.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itdc2ai","c_root_id_B":"itduwab","created_at_utc_A":1666468147,"created_at_utc_B":1666476140,"score_A":2,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I will concede that that abuse\/ fraud by the people who welfare programs are for is incredibly rare, and would cost much more to prosecute than we would gain in restitution payments and penalties. I would even go so far as to say that the fraud by individuals earning less than 50k a year is negligible. However, those assistance programs generally pay merchants etc. And that is where the significant fraud comes in. Services unrendered, changing invoices, straight up extortion... and that is significant not because of the monetary fraud. Instead, because the systems we have in place to help are being used to continue the harm done to vulnerable populations. That harm is what is significant. People who would otherwise be able to turn their lives to the better are victims of price gouging, unsanitary lining conditions, undrinkable water, sex trafficking, lead poisoning... etc. Additionally, the harm caused by the few cases of actual fraud is magnified by cutting the funding to these populations on the pretext of punishing fraud. Without that safety net and feeling of security, other forms of illicit income become very attractive. Unfortunately, the types of people committing the fraud are also the people that can afford lawyers and shell companies, making it much more expensive to combat.","human_ref_B":"Let's say you qualify for 6 months of unemployment checks, but you know that you can probably find a job within 2 months. You relax for the first 4 months and only start taking your job search seriously afterwards. Legally, you're not commiting fraud, but you're still taking advantage of unemployment insurance in a way that it's not intended. A lot of people might not even be conscious of doing this.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7993.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"ite5m0j","c_root_id_B":"itey5jp","created_at_utc_A":1666481085,"created_at_utc_B":1666495046,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Having nearly a decade of work in mental health community center i have a lot of experience both applying and aiding people on benefits. I would say even in my field where many of those people have a clear and well documented mental health issue, it is still very obscene when people just refuse to try to do anything productive. Many of our clients have the ability to work and just choose not to because they would prefer the free money from the government\/tax payer. It isn't just the fraud of people faking issues but also the fact that when money is just given to you, it greatly diminishes a person desire to try and work.","human_ref_B":"All you have to do is live in a community or have lots of friends within the communities of 'welfare people' to see that fraud is ridiculously rampant. People sell their food stamps constantly for cash, they do it right on facebook half the time (I basically guarantee most people can search the local marketplace and find it). People purposefully fill out applications to places to work(because that's required to maintain unemployment, to show you are trying) and then they will block the number of the place they applied so they can never call them. The amount of people on disability who are absolutely capable of holding a job is actually kind of astounding once you meet and know 10 or 20 people on disability. These are all frauds and there's nobody who lives within a circle of 'welfare folks' who doesn't see these frauds on a extremely common basis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13961.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itd81w3","c_root_id_B":"ite5m0j","created_at_utc_A":1666466459,"created_at_utc_B":1666481085,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What, in your view, would be a high enough percentage of abuse to constitute a \"significant\" problem? Do you consider public trust in a system to be an important value? This is leading, as you can infer, to a follow up question about whether, basically, visible cheating of a system, even if not a \"significant\" percentage, has negative effects in people's trust of a system.","human_ref_B":"Having nearly a decade of work in mental health community center i have a lot of experience both applying and aiding people on benefits. I would say even in my field where many of those people have a clear and well documented mental health issue, it is still very obscene when people just refuse to try to do anything productive. Many of our clients have the ability to work and just choose not to because they would prefer the free money from the government\/tax payer. It isn't just the fraud of people faking issues but also the fact that when money is just given to you, it greatly diminishes a person desire to try and work.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14626.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"ite5m0j","c_root_id_B":"itdc2ai","created_at_utc_A":1666481085,"created_at_utc_B":1666468147,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Having nearly a decade of work in mental health community center i have a lot of experience both applying and aiding people on benefits. I would say even in my field where many of those people have a clear and well documented mental health issue, it is still very obscene when people just refuse to try to do anything productive. Many of our clients have the ability to work and just choose not to because they would prefer the free money from the government\/tax payer. It isn't just the fraud of people faking issues but also the fact that when money is just given to you, it greatly diminishes a person desire to try and work.","human_ref_B":"I will concede that that abuse\/ fraud by the people who welfare programs are for is incredibly rare, and would cost much more to prosecute than we would gain in restitution payments and penalties. I would even go so far as to say that the fraud by individuals earning less than 50k a year is negligible. However, those assistance programs generally pay merchants etc. And that is where the significant fraud comes in. Services unrendered, changing invoices, straight up extortion... and that is significant not because of the monetary fraud. Instead, because the systems we have in place to help are being used to continue the harm done to vulnerable populations. That harm is what is significant. People who would otherwise be able to turn their lives to the better are victims of price gouging, unsanitary lining conditions, undrinkable water, sex trafficking, lead poisoning... etc. Additionally, the harm caused by the few cases of actual fraud is magnified by cutting the funding to these populations on the pretext of punishing fraud. Without that safety net and feeling of security, other forms of illicit income become very attractive. Unfortunately, the types of people committing the fraud are also the people that can afford lawyers and shell companies, making it much more expensive to combat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12938.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itdy427","c_root_id_B":"ite5m0j","created_at_utc_A":1666477620,"created_at_utc_B":1666481085,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"A fairly basic problem is that it\u2019s difficult to parse the numbers here. The congressional budget is multi-hundred pages - parsing that into interactive pie charts that can be clicked into is left as an exerciser to others. Depending on which programs or not you could, welfare type programs are ~15% of the budget (with half being medicaid). I think the bigger general problem than \u2018abuse\u2019 is more a widely shared philosophical belief (mostly among conservatives) that the programs are ineffective at achieving their goal, which is more waste than abuse. But we did see that *very little* of the Covid relief funds reached appropriate destinations, and stuff like that contributes heavily to distrust of the entitlements in general.","human_ref_B":"Having nearly a decade of work in mental health community center i have a lot of experience both applying and aiding people on benefits. I would say even in my field where many of those people have a clear and well documented mental health issue, it is still very obscene when people just refuse to try to do anything productive. Many of our clients have the ability to work and just choose not to because they would prefer the free money from the government\/tax payer. It isn't just the fraud of people faking issues but also the fact that when money is just given to you, it greatly diminishes a person desire to try and work.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3465.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itd8l4p","c_root_id_B":"itey5jp","created_at_utc_A":1666466684,"created_at_utc_B":1666495046,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Look at the date of that article. April 2020. Something pretty significant happened later that year and into the next... one that swamped state unemployment agencies across the nation and caused a *significant* increase of improper payments to the tune of *billions* of dollars. While not *all* of that was due to fraud, much of it was... and while entitlement fraud may not be a significantly *persistant* problem, it is certainly a problem of great significance when greater opportunity to defraud the government present themselves. That isn't to say that many people don't disingenuously raise the spectre of fraud to demonize the needy and make it more difficult to access welfare programs, that's not the argument I'm making, it's just that fraud is or at least can become a problem.","human_ref_B":"All you have to do is live in a community or have lots of friends within the communities of 'welfare people' to see that fraud is ridiculously rampant. People sell their food stamps constantly for cash, they do it right on facebook half the time (I basically guarantee most people can search the local marketplace and find it). People purposefully fill out applications to places to work(because that's required to maintain unemployment, to show you are trying) and then they will block the number of the place they applied so they can never call them. The amount of people on disability who are absolutely capable of holding a job is actually kind of astounding once you meet and know 10 or 20 people on disability. These are all frauds and there's nobody who lives within a circle of 'welfare folks' who doesn't see these frauds on a extremely common basis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28362.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itd81w3","c_root_id_B":"itd8l4p","created_at_utc_A":1666466459,"created_at_utc_B":1666466684,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What, in your view, would be a high enough percentage of abuse to constitute a \"significant\" problem? Do you consider public trust in a system to be an important value? This is leading, as you can infer, to a follow up question about whether, basically, visible cheating of a system, even if not a \"significant\" percentage, has negative effects in people's trust of a system.","human_ref_B":"Look at the date of that article. April 2020. Something pretty significant happened later that year and into the next... one that swamped state unemployment agencies across the nation and caused a *significant* increase of improper payments to the tune of *billions* of dollars. While not *all* of that was due to fraud, much of it was... and while entitlement fraud may not be a significantly *persistant* problem, it is certainly a problem of great significance when greater opportunity to defraud the government present themselves. That isn't to say that many people don't disingenuously raise the spectre of fraud to demonize the needy and make it more difficult to access welfare programs, that's not the argument I'm making, it's just that fraud is or at least can become a problem.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":225.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itd81w3","c_root_id_B":"itey5jp","created_at_utc_A":1666466459,"created_at_utc_B":1666495046,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"What, in your view, would be a high enough percentage of abuse to constitute a \"significant\" problem? Do you consider public trust in a system to be an important value? This is leading, as you can infer, to a follow up question about whether, basically, visible cheating of a system, even if not a \"significant\" percentage, has negative effects in people's trust of a system.","human_ref_B":"All you have to do is live in a community or have lots of friends within the communities of 'welfare people' to see that fraud is ridiculously rampant. People sell their food stamps constantly for cash, they do it right on facebook half the time (I basically guarantee most people can search the local marketplace and find it). People purposefully fill out applications to places to work(because that's required to maintain unemployment, to show you are trying) and then they will block the number of the place they applied so they can never call them. The amount of people on disability who are absolutely capable of holding a job is actually kind of astounding once you meet and know 10 or 20 people on disability. These are all frauds and there's nobody who lives within a circle of 'welfare folks' who doesn't see these frauds on a extremely common basis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28587.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itey5jp","c_root_id_B":"itdc2ai","created_at_utc_A":1666495046,"created_at_utc_B":1666468147,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"All you have to do is live in a community or have lots of friends within the communities of 'welfare people' to see that fraud is ridiculously rampant. People sell their food stamps constantly for cash, they do it right on facebook half the time (I basically guarantee most people can search the local marketplace and find it). People purposefully fill out applications to places to work(because that's required to maintain unemployment, to show you are trying) and then they will block the number of the place they applied so they can never call them. The amount of people on disability who are absolutely capable of holding a job is actually kind of astounding once you meet and know 10 or 20 people on disability. These are all frauds and there's nobody who lives within a circle of 'welfare folks' who doesn't see these frauds on a extremely common basis.","human_ref_B":"I will concede that that abuse\/ fraud by the people who welfare programs are for is incredibly rare, and would cost much more to prosecute than we would gain in restitution payments and penalties. I would even go so far as to say that the fraud by individuals earning less than 50k a year is negligible. However, those assistance programs generally pay merchants etc. And that is where the significant fraud comes in. Services unrendered, changing invoices, straight up extortion... and that is significant not because of the monetary fraud. Instead, because the systems we have in place to help are being used to continue the harm done to vulnerable populations. That harm is what is significant. People who would otherwise be able to turn their lives to the better are victims of price gouging, unsanitary lining conditions, undrinkable water, sex trafficking, lead poisoning... etc. Additionally, the harm caused by the few cases of actual fraud is magnified by cutting the funding to these populations on the pretext of punishing fraud. Without that safety net and feeling of security, other forms of illicit income become very attractive. Unfortunately, the types of people committing the fraud are also the people that can afford lawyers and shell companies, making it much more expensive to combat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26899.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"yavwzc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Abuse of welfare\/social assistance programs is not a significant problem in the US Hey guys! A few weeks ago I made a CMV about this very topic that got removed, I figured I'd give it another go to see if someone could C my V. My stance is that welfare fraud\/abuse is not a significant issue among poor people in the US, essentially I think the vast majority of poor people on welfare use the programs as intended and do not defraud the system. According to this article https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/five-myths\/five-myths-about-the-safety-net\/2020\/04\/16\/dbbe0dec-7f37-11ea-9040-68981f488eed\\_story.html only 2% of unemployment claims are paid in error and that for every $10,000 in SNAP benefits paid, only $11 were paid out in fraud. Birth rates for women on welfare programs is also much lower then women not on welfare so that's another stereotype popped. My view is that welfare abuse is in fact not a significant issue in the US, I believe the main use of this rhetoric is as a pretext for cutting welfare programs in general. They point to extremely rare examples of so-called welfare queen as an excuse to cut often needed help to Joe and Jane. Please CMV as to why welfare abuse is in fact a major, significant issue in the US.","c_root_id_A":"itdy427","c_root_id_B":"itey5jp","created_at_utc_A":1666477620,"created_at_utc_B":1666495046,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"A fairly basic problem is that it\u2019s difficult to parse the numbers here. The congressional budget is multi-hundred pages - parsing that into interactive pie charts that can be clicked into is left as an exerciser to others. Depending on which programs or not you could, welfare type programs are ~15% of the budget (with half being medicaid). I think the bigger general problem than \u2018abuse\u2019 is more a widely shared philosophical belief (mostly among conservatives) that the programs are ineffective at achieving their goal, which is more waste than abuse. But we did see that *very little* of the Covid relief funds reached appropriate destinations, and stuff like that contributes heavily to distrust of the entitlements in general.","human_ref_B":"All you have to do is live in a community or have lots of friends within the communities of 'welfare people' to see that fraud is ridiculously rampant. People sell their food stamps constantly for cash, they do it right on facebook half the time (I basically guarantee most people can search the local marketplace and find it). People purposefully fill out applications to places to work(because that's required to maintain unemployment, to show you are trying) and then they will block the number of the place they applied so they can never call them. The amount of people on disability who are absolutely capable of holding a job is actually kind of astounding once you meet and know 10 or 20 people on disability. These are all frauds and there's nobody who lives within a circle of 'welfare folks' who doesn't see these frauds on a extremely common basis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17426.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik0x6z0","c_root_id_B":"ik0uod6","created_at_utc_A":1660327529,"created_at_utc_B":1660326572,"score_A":77,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think you're overestimating both the breadth and scope of the organization's mission and underestimating their effectiveness. The entire idea behind MADD wasn't to promote systemic changes to diminish car dependence, it was to just say \"cab rides are cheaper than DUIs\/accidents\" and to villify drinking and driving. I'm in my 30s now, and everybody discouraged everyone else from drinking and driving in college. I was never in a situation where my friends told me \"don't be such a p*ssy, dude. Nothing is gonna happen.\" If i didn't want to drive after having a few beers. For nights out, we would organize to make sure nobody would have to drive. \"let's start the night at X's house, take a cab to the bar, and take a cab back To Xs house and crash there.\" Drinking and driving was just a non-starter for so many in my generation, despite all of us relying on cars for daily transit. That is madds effectiveness.","human_ref_B":"its called mothers against drunk driving not mothers against drinking. all they care about is how you drive those women probably get loaded at bars afterward from all the ptsd but they call an uber before they step out of the bar door. safety first","labels":1,"seconds_difference":957.0,"score_ratio":25.6666666667} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik0uod6","c_root_id_B":"ik101sw","created_at_utc_A":1660326572,"created_at_utc_B":1660328628,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"its called mothers against drunk driving not mothers against drinking. all they care about is how you drive those women probably get loaded at bars afterward from all the ptsd but they call an uber before they step out of the bar door. safety first","human_ref_B":"MADD primarily focuses on things individuals can do to protect themselves. While things such as zoning laws or promoting mass transit would help, those sorts of solutions go beyond the individual. Someone drunk in a bar cannot just conjure a bus line. Take an Uber, take a taxi, have a designated driver are all things organizations like MADD regularly encourage. Since these are things that an individual can do, on short notice, to protect themselves. Designated driving was an idea that had to planted into public conscience. It didn't happen naturally. The idea started at Harvard, but was boosted by various groups to the point that it is something people are generally aware of now. So I cannot credit MADD for inventing the idea, but they have run with the ball since. Similarly, MADD is quite pro-autonomous vehicles. If the driver isn't driving, then the risk of drunk driving dissipates. That said, MADD is very strong on the \"no underage drinking\". So there is a drinking bad element sorta. But generally speaking being against underage drinking doesn't often get one called a teetotaler.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2056.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik16dpm","c_root_id_B":"ik118gz","created_at_utc_A":1660331053,"created_at_utc_B":1660329076,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I 100% agree on you that the American dependency on cars is bad. That said, the organization is based in Texas, which is heavily car- and highway-focused. Most of the country is like that as well. That's the frame of reference they're coming from, the drunk driving that they actually see on a regular basis. And from a harm reduction standpoint, creating social pressure\/stigma around drunk driving is probably a lot more effective at getting results faster than attempting to overhaul suburban sprawl, town budgets, everything you just mentioned.","human_ref_B":">What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption It isn't. Nowhere on their \"solutions\" page does it advocate for stopping the consumption of alcohol completely.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1977.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik0uod6","c_root_id_B":"ik16dpm","created_at_utc_A":1660326572,"created_at_utc_B":1660331053,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"its called mothers against drunk driving not mothers against drinking. all they care about is how you drive those women probably get loaded at bars afterward from all the ptsd but they call an uber before they step out of the bar door. safety first","human_ref_B":"I 100% agree on you that the American dependency on cars is bad. That said, the organization is based in Texas, which is heavily car- and highway-focused. Most of the country is like that as well. That's the frame of reference they're coming from, the drunk driving that they actually see on a regular basis. And from a harm reduction standpoint, creating social pressure\/stigma around drunk driving is probably a lot more effective at getting results faster than attempting to overhaul suburban sprawl, town budgets, everything you just mentioned.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4481.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik16dpm","c_root_id_B":"ik112ok","created_at_utc_A":1660331053,"created_at_utc_B":1660329013,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I 100% agree on you that the American dependency on cars is bad. That said, the organization is based in Texas, which is heavily car- and highway-focused. Most of the country is like that as well. That's the frame of reference they're coming from, the drunk driving that they actually see on a regular basis. And from a harm reduction standpoint, creating social pressure\/stigma around drunk driving is probably a lot more effective at getting results faster than attempting to overhaul suburban sprawl, town budgets, everything you just mentioned.","human_ref_B":"I think it all boils down too you aren't going to get people to stop using personal cars. In large cities maybe where people don't realize how much more convient cats are maybe but suburbs and rural areas won't ever switch h to mass transit willingly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2040.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik1ej0f","c_root_id_B":"ik118gz","created_at_utc_A":1660334276,"created_at_utc_B":1660329076,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Your proposals in the first paragraph are great for cities, but lose efficacy as you move away from the city center. For example, I grew up in a very small farming community. The town had a bar, but as many people live around the town as in it. For many of the people at the bars, this would be walking 5 or 6 miles each way. That's not feasible to make more walkable. Now, as to MADD, I don't think anyone can change your perception. It's wrong, but it is yours. Being against underaged drinking and ensuring that blood alcohol levels more accurately reflect your impairment are nowhere near teetotaling and\/or prohibition.","human_ref_B":">What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption It isn't. Nowhere on their \"solutions\" page does it advocate for stopping the consumption of alcohol completely.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5200.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik1ej0f","c_root_id_B":"ik0uod6","created_at_utc_A":1660334276,"created_at_utc_B":1660326572,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Your proposals in the first paragraph are great for cities, but lose efficacy as you move away from the city center. For example, I grew up in a very small farming community. The town had a bar, but as many people live around the town as in it. For many of the people at the bars, this would be walking 5 or 6 miles each way. That's not feasible to make more walkable. Now, as to MADD, I don't think anyone can change your perception. It's wrong, but it is yours. Being against underaged drinking and ensuring that blood alcohol levels more accurately reflect your impairment are nowhere near teetotaling and\/or prohibition.","human_ref_B":"its called mothers against drunk driving not mothers against drinking. all they care about is how you drive those women probably get loaded at bars afterward from all the ptsd but they call an uber before they step out of the bar door. safety first","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7704.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik1ej0f","c_root_id_B":"ik1buzm","created_at_utc_A":1660334276,"created_at_utc_B":1660333234,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Your proposals in the first paragraph are great for cities, but lose efficacy as you move away from the city center. For example, I grew up in a very small farming community. The town had a bar, but as many people live around the town as in it. For many of the people at the bars, this would be walking 5 or 6 miles each way. That's not feasible to make more walkable. Now, as to MADD, I don't think anyone can change your perception. It's wrong, but it is yours. Being against underaged drinking and ensuring that blood alcohol levels more accurately reflect your impairment are nowhere near teetotaling and\/or prohibition.","human_ref_B":"I don't think people really remember or are aware of the culture and attitudes around drunk driving in the 70s. Drunk driving accidents were just considered accidents, but MADD was crucial to bringing some sort of accountability to the situation, and making people realize the risks of drunk driving and that these issues are preventable. They passed tons of legislation and changed the culture around drunk driving. MADD was so effective that people today don't really even realize how much the culture changed. MADD isn't a teetotaler organization, they're about mitigating risk. MADD introduced concept of designated drivers (I think in the 80s?) and also encouraging people who have been drinking to take cabs. If they were totally against alcohol the mission would be to try and get people to stop drinking and ban alcohol, but that's not really what they do. MADD is most active around drinking holidays, but again, the strategy is telling people to get a designated driver or call a cab, not telling people to avoid drinking all together.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1042.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik1ej0f","c_root_id_B":"ik112ok","created_at_utc_A":1660334276,"created_at_utc_B":1660329013,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Your proposals in the first paragraph are great for cities, but lose efficacy as you move away from the city center. For example, I grew up in a very small farming community. The town had a bar, but as many people live around the town as in it. For many of the people at the bars, this would be walking 5 or 6 miles each way. That's not feasible to make more walkable. Now, as to MADD, I don't think anyone can change your perception. It's wrong, but it is yours. Being against underaged drinking and ensuring that blood alcohol levels more accurately reflect your impairment are nowhere near teetotaling and\/or prohibition.","human_ref_B":"I think it all boils down too you aren't going to get people to stop using personal cars. In large cities maybe where people don't realize how much more convient cats are maybe but suburbs and rural areas won't ever switch h to mass transit willingly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5263.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik0uod6","c_root_id_B":"ik118gz","created_at_utc_A":1660326572,"created_at_utc_B":1660329076,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"its called mothers against drunk driving not mothers against drinking. all they care about is how you drive those women probably get loaded at bars afterward from all the ptsd but they call an uber before they step out of the bar door. safety first","human_ref_B":">What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption It isn't. Nowhere on their \"solutions\" page does it advocate for stopping the consumption of alcohol completely.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2504.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik112ok","c_root_id_B":"ik118gz","created_at_utc_A":1660329013,"created_at_utc_B":1660329076,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think it all boils down too you aren't going to get people to stop using personal cars. In large cities maybe where people don't realize how much more convient cats are maybe but suburbs and rural areas won't ever switch h to mass transit willingly.","human_ref_B":">What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption It isn't. Nowhere on their \"solutions\" page does it advocate for stopping the consumption of alcohol completely.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":63.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik112ok","c_root_id_B":"ik1buzm","created_at_utc_A":1660329013,"created_at_utc_B":1660333234,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think it all boils down too you aren't going to get people to stop using personal cars. In large cities maybe where people don't realize how much more convient cats are maybe but suburbs and rural areas won't ever switch h to mass transit willingly.","human_ref_B":"I don't think people really remember or are aware of the culture and attitudes around drunk driving in the 70s. Drunk driving accidents were just considered accidents, but MADD was crucial to bringing some sort of accountability to the situation, and making people realize the risks of drunk driving and that these issues are preventable. They passed tons of legislation and changed the culture around drunk driving. MADD was so effective that people today don't really even realize how much the culture changed. MADD isn't a teetotaler organization, they're about mitigating risk. MADD introduced concept of designated drivers (I think in the 80s?) and also encouraging people who have been drinking to take cabs. If they were totally against alcohol the mission would be to try and get people to stop drinking and ban alcohol, but that's not really what they do. MADD is most active around drinking holidays, but again, the strategy is telling people to get a designated driver or call a cab, not telling people to avoid drinking all together.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4221.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik112ok","c_root_id_B":"ik2ldcg","created_at_utc_A":1660329013,"created_at_utc_B":1660352609,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think it all boils down too you aren't going to get people to stop using personal cars. In large cities maybe where people don't realize how much more convient cats are maybe but suburbs and rural areas won't ever switch h to mass transit willingly.","human_ref_B":"The CEO of MADD got ticketed FOR DRUNK DRIVING \ud83d\ude02\ud83d\ude02\ud83d\ude02\ud83d\ude02","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23596.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik1hkzv","c_root_id_B":"ik2ldcg","created_at_utc_A":1660335474,"created_at_utc_B":1660352609,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What proof do you have that MADD wants total prohibition on alcohol, even for people who don't drive drunk?","human_ref_B":"The CEO of MADD got ticketed FOR DRUNK DRIVING \ud83d\ude02\ud83d\ude02\ud83d\ude02\ud83d\ude02","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17135.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wmr05k","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Mothers Against Drunk Driving and derivative organizations focus too much on the drinking and not enough on the driving It's my opinion that if you're trying to eliminate or decrease deaths in drunk driving crashes advocating for late night mass transit, increased density mixed use zoning that's more walkable, whatever else would mitigate car crashes even if neither driver is drunk. I believe M.A.D.D. is a thinly veiled temperance movement who prefer a return to Prohibition, rather than being interested in any solution that wouldn't disparage drinking alcohol. Personally, I have never once to 'drink and drive' but am a social drinker, and would like more opportunity to drink with alternative means to get home after a night drinking other than uber or designated driver and in general miss living in NYC where there's a plethora of alternatives to drunk driving. And then there's the ancillary benefits of a robust mass transit for all people to use, it's healthier to have some walking with bus, subway and tram\/light-rail mixed into your daily travels, rather than the exclusive dependence on privately owned cars which have shown to be deleterious to the individual's health. Any argument that consuming alcohol is harmful to the health of the people who partake would have to ignore that the greater number of daily drivers would have a greater impact than trying to curb alcohol consumption, there's far more drivers than alcohol drinkers every day except on New Year's Day and other holidays that have higher drinking and less driving. What would convince me to change my view would either be that M.A.D.D. isn't a fundamentalist teetotaler organization primarily focused on curbing alcohol consumption or that drunk driving wouldn't be eliminated from abandoning, in large party, the American dependency on cars.","c_root_id_A":"ik2ldcg","c_root_id_B":"ik25ero","created_at_utc_A":1660352609,"created_at_utc_B":1660345398,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The CEO of MADD got ticketed FOR DRUNK DRIVING \ud83d\ude02\ud83d\ude02\ud83d\ude02\ud83d\ude02","human_ref_B":"The fact that they lobbied for the program for free taxi ride for people at bars should tell you that they are primarily interested in keeping people from driving drunk rather than keeping them from drinking. They've also done studies that show the existence of Uber has lowered drunk driving, and have praised it on that basis. I.e. they *have* tried to do other things to reduce crashes besides getting people not to drink... Things they can actually do something about with reasonable chance of success, not things which they have zero reasonable ability to control, like urban density. The thing about being against underaged drinking is a related topic... because young drivers are statistically the most dangerous cohort because they're new at driving, and drunkards make that *way* worse. You *really* don't want people to be learning to drive and learning to drink responsibly *at the same time*... that's just a recipe for disaster. Hence the push to move the first drinking age farther from the first driving age.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7211.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujr7k9","c_root_id_B":"iujtbw1","created_at_utc_A":1667251091,"created_at_utc_B":1667252016,"score_A":12,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":">it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. What are your sources for these claims? As far as I know, no one considers either of those things to be \"hip and cool\".","human_ref_B":"I want to offer a slightly different take on your premise here, because the current comments seem to focus on the moral interpretation of your view here. Statistically speaking - as in, what do we empirically know, all moral questions aside - cigarettes are the number one killer among adults in society. I say this as a smoker myself. And it *does* kill innocent bystanders. I know \u201csecondhand smoke\u201d seems like some medical bogeyman, but it\u2019s a deeply serious issue. Tobacco kills twice as many people as \u201charmful alcohol usage\u201d (that includes DUI). That\u2019s why governments consider it worse. Because on the paper, as in \u201chow many lives are lost\/how expensive is caring for the consequences,\u201d tobacco is far worse than alcohol. Both for the smoker and those unlucky enough to be nearby - and for society when the bill needs to be paid. It\u2019s just that it\u2019s a slow killer and the death doesn\u2019t look very gruesome, and victims can\u2019t be tracked to the individual \u201cevent\u201d of smoking, so on the face of it, alcohol seems much more immediately dangerous and harmful. But statistically it isn\u2019t. Please note that I\u2019m not trying to make a moral argument here. I\u2019m not saying a family being run over is less bad than someone dying of lung cancer because their parents smoked inside the house all their life, I\u2019m just saying on the paper, tobacco is the bigger killer, and by *that* metric, it\u2019s \u201cworse.\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":925.0,"score_ratio":4.0833333333} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujtbw1","c_root_id_B":"iujqcid","created_at_utc_A":1667252016,"created_at_utc_B":1667250719,"score_A":49,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I want to offer a slightly different take on your premise here, because the current comments seem to focus on the moral interpretation of your view here. Statistically speaking - as in, what do we empirically know, all moral questions aside - cigarettes are the number one killer among adults in society. I say this as a smoker myself. And it *does* kill innocent bystanders. I know \u201csecondhand smoke\u201d seems like some medical bogeyman, but it\u2019s a deeply serious issue. Tobacco kills twice as many people as \u201charmful alcohol usage\u201d (that includes DUI). That\u2019s why governments consider it worse. Because on the paper, as in \u201chow many lives are lost\/how expensive is caring for the consequences,\u201d tobacco is far worse than alcohol. Both for the smoker and those unlucky enough to be nearby - and for society when the bill needs to be paid. It\u2019s just that it\u2019s a slow killer and the death doesn\u2019t look very gruesome, and victims can\u2019t be tracked to the individual \u201cevent\u201d of smoking, so on the face of it, alcohol seems much more immediately dangerous and harmful. But statistically it isn\u2019t. Please note that I\u2019m not trying to make a moral argument here. I\u2019m not saying a family being run over is less bad than someone dying of lung cancer because their parents smoked inside the house all their life, I\u2019m just saying on the paper, tobacco is the bigger killer, and by *that* metric, it\u2019s \u201cworse.\u201d","human_ref_B":"Alcohol is much worse than cigarettes. Cigarettes kill the body and sometimes passive bystanders are affected. Alcohol can destroy families down the generations via the behaviour it enables, people it kills, bystanders it causes the deaths of.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1297.0,"score_ratio":4.4545454545} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujtbw1","c_root_id_B":"iujqm60","created_at_utc_A":1667252016,"created_at_utc_B":1667250835,"score_A":49,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I want to offer a slightly different take on your premise here, because the current comments seem to focus on the moral interpretation of your view here. Statistically speaking - as in, what do we empirically know, all moral questions aside - cigarettes are the number one killer among adults in society. I say this as a smoker myself. And it *does* kill innocent bystanders. I know \u201csecondhand smoke\u201d seems like some medical bogeyman, but it\u2019s a deeply serious issue. Tobacco kills twice as many people as \u201charmful alcohol usage\u201d (that includes DUI). That\u2019s why governments consider it worse. Because on the paper, as in \u201chow many lives are lost\/how expensive is caring for the consequences,\u201d tobacco is far worse than alcohol. Both for the smoker and those unlucky enough to be nearby - and for society when the bill needs to be paid. It\u2019s just that it\u2019s a slow killer and the death doesn\u2019t look very gruesome, and victims can\u2019t be tracked to the individual \u201cevent\u201d of smoking, so on the face of it, alcohol seems much more immediately dangerous and harmful. But statistically it isn\u2019t. Please note that I\u2019m not trying to make a moral argument here. I\u2019m not saying a family being run over is less bad than someone dying of lung cancer because their parents smoked inside the house all their life, I\u2019m just saying on the paper, tobacco is the bigger killer, and by *that* metric, it\u2019s \u201cworse.\u201d","human_ref_B":">Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? Why do you think you or anyone should have a say in what other people do with\/to their own bodies?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1181.0,"score_ratio":4.9} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujtbw1","c_root_id_B":"iujszs7","created_at_utc_A":1667252016,"created_at_utc_B":1667251866,"score_A":49,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I want to offer a slightly different take on your premise here, because the current comments seem to focus on the moral interpretation of your view here. Statistically speaking - as in, what do we empirically know, all moral questions aside - cigarettes are the number one killer among adults in society. I say this as a smoker myself. And it *does* kill innocent bystanders. I know \u201csecondhand smoke\u201d seems like some medical bogeyman, but it\u2019s a deeply serious issue. Tobacco kills twice as many people as \u201charmful alcohol usage\u201d (that includes DUI). That\u2019s why governments consider it worse. Because on the paper, as in \u201chow many lives are lost\/how expensive is caring for the consequences,\u201d tobacco is far worse than alcohol. Both for the smoker and those unlucky enough to be nearby - and for society when the bill needs to be paid. It\u2019s just that it\u2019s a slow killer and the death doesn\u2019t look very gruesome, and victims can\u2019t be tracked to the individual \u201cevent\u201d of smoking, so on the face of it, alcohol seems much more immediately dangerous and harmful. But statistically it isn\u2019t. Please note that I\u2019m not trying to make a moral argument here. I\u2019m not saying a family being run over is less bad than someone dying of lung cancer because their parents smoked inside the house all their life, I\u2019m just saying on the paper, tobacco is the bigger killer, and by *that* metric, it\u2019s \u201cworse.\u201d","human_ref_B":">if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? What if you don't intend to drive? > think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. Examples? I rarely see barfing and drunk driving portrayed as hip and cool.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":150.0,"score_ratio":9.8} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujtbw1","c_root_id_B":"iujrydj","created_at_utc_A":1667252016,"created_at_utc_B":1667251409,"score_A":49,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I want to offer a slightly different take on your premise here, because the current comments seem to focus on the moral interpretation of your view here. Statistically speaking - as in, what do we empirically know, all moral questions aside - cigarettes are the number one killer among adults in society. I say this as a smoker myself. And it *does* kill innocent bystanders. I know \u201csecondhand smoke\u201d seems like some medical bogeyman, but it\u2019s a deeply serious issue. Tobacco kills twice as many people as \u201charmful alcohol usage\u201d (that includes DUI). That\u2019s why governments consider it worse. Because on the paper, as in \u201chow many lives are lost\/how expensive is caring for the consequences,\u201d tobacco is far worse than alcohol. Both for the smoker and those unlucky enough to be nearby - and for society when the bill needs to be paid. It\u2019s just that it\u2019s a slow killer and the death doesn\u2019t look very gruesome, and victims can\u2019t be tracked to the individual \u201cevent\u201d of smoking, so on the face of it, alcohol seems much more immediately dangerous and harmful. But statistically it isn\u2019t. Please note that I\u2019m not trying to make a moral argument here. I\u2019m not saying a family being run over is less bad than someone dying of lung cancer because their parents smoked inside the house all their life, I\u2019m just saying on the paper, tobacco is the bigger killer, and by *that* metric, it\u2019s \u201cworse.\u201d","human_ref_B":"There are certainly problems with alcohol. However, there is a \"safe\" way to consume alcohol, while there is no \"safe\" way to consume cigarettes. If you have a single beer with dinner every night for twenty years, you'll likely suffer no ill affects. However, if you smoke a single cigarette with dinner every night for twenty years, you'll significantly increase your risk of heart and lung diseases.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":607.0,"score_ratio":24.5} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujr7k9","c_root_id_B":"iuju1m3","created_at_utc_A":1667251091,"created_at_utc_B":1667252328,"score_A":12,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":">it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. What are your sources for these claims? As far as I know, no one considers either of those things to be \"hip and cool\".","human_ref_B":">Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? Because, shockingly enough, I spend large amounts of time doing things that aren't driving. >it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. Genuine question, who are you friends with? A bunch of college frat bros? Because that's basically the only demographic that fits your description. As a whole, cigarettes have a lot more direct impact on people who aren't using them. Second hand smoke is terrible. On the other hand, I can sit down with a bottle of liquor, and there's no direct impact on you. Similarly, the smell of smoke gets into everything, the smoke stains things, and all that shit. I accidentally dropped an entire bottle of alcohol a few days back, and the smell was gone by the end of the day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1237.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iuju1m3","c_root_id_B":"iujqcid","created_at_utc_A":1667252328,"created_at_utc_B":1667250719,"score_A":21,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? Because, shockingly enough, I spend large amounts of time doing things that aren't driving. >it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. Genuine question, who are you friends with? A bunch of college frat bros? Because that's basically the only demographic that fits your description. As a whole, cigarettes have a lot more direct impact on people who aren't using them. Second hand smoke is terrible. On the other hand, I can sit down with a bottle of liquor, and there's no direct impact on you. Similarly, the smell of smoke gets into everything, the smoke stains things, and all that shit. I accidentally dropped an entire bottle of alcohol a few days back, and the smell was gone by the end of the day.","human_ref_B":"Alcohol is much worse than cigarettes. Cigarettes kill the body and sometimes passive bystanders are affected. Alcohol can destroy families down the generations via the behaviour it enables, people it kills, bystanders it causes the deaths of.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1609.0,"score_ratio":1.9090909091} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujqm60","c_root_id_B":"iuju1m3","created_at_utc_A":1667250835,"created_at_utc_B":1667252328,"score_A":10,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":">Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? Why do you think you or anyone should have a say in what other people do with\/to their own bodies?","human_ref_B":">Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? Because, shockingly enough, I spend large amounts of time doing things that aren't driving. >it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. Genuine question, who are you friends with? A bunch of college frat bros? Because that's basically the only demographic that fits your description. As a whole, cigarettes have a lot more direct impact on people who aren't using them. Second hand smoke is terrible. On the other hand, I can sit down with a bottle of liquor, and there's no direct impact on you. Similarly, the smell of smoke gets into everything, the smoke stains things, and all that shit. I accidentally dropped an entire bottle of alcohol a few days back, and the smell was gone by the end of the day.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1493.0,"score_ratio":2.1} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iuju1m3","c_root_id_B":"iujszs7","created_at_utc_A":1667252328,"created_at_utc_B":1667251866,"score_A":21,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? Because, shockingly enough, I spend large amounts of time doing things that aren't driving. >it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. Genuine question, who are you friends with? A bunch of college frat bros? Because that's basically the only demographic that fits your description. As a whole, cigarettes have a lot more direct impact on people who aren't using them. Second hand smoke is terrible. On the other hand, I can sit down with a bottle of liquor, and there's no direct impact on you. Similarly, the smell of smoke gets into everything, the smoke stains things, and all that shit. I accidentally dropped an entire bottle of alcohol a few days back, and the smell was gone by the end of the day.","human_ref_B":">if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? What if you don't intend to drive? > think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. Examples? I rarely see barfing and drunk driving portrayed as hip and cool.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":462.0,"score_ratio":4.2} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iuju1m3","c_root_id_B":"iujrydj","created_at_utc_A":1667252328,"created_at_utc_B":1667251409,"score_A":21,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? Because, shockingly enough, I spend large amounts of time doing things that aren't driving. >it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. Genuine question, who are you friends with? A bunch of college frat bros? Because that's basically the only demographic that fits your description. As a whole, cigarettes have a lot more direct impact on people who aren't using them. Second hand smoke is terrible. On the other hand, I can sit down with a bottle of liquor, and there's no direct impact on you. Similarly, the smell of smoke gets into everything, the smoke stains things, and all that shit. I accidentally dropped an entire bottle of alcohol a few days back, and the smell was gone by the end of the day.","human_ref_B":"There are certainly problems with alcohol. However, there is a \"safe\" way to consume alcohol, while there is no \"safe\" way to consume cigarettes. If you have a single beer with dinner every night for twenty years, you'll likely suffer no ill affects. However, if you smoke a single cigarette with dinner every night for twenty years, you'll significantly increase your risk of heart and lung diseases.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":919.0,"score_ratio":10.5} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujr7k9","c_root_id_B":"iujqcid","created_at_utc_A":1667251091,"created_at_utc_B":1667250719,"score_A":12,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. What are your sources for these claims? As far as I know, no one considers either of those things to be \"hip and cool\".","human_ref_B":"Alcohol is much worse than cigarettes. Cigarettes kill the body and sometimes passive bystanders are affected. Alcohol can destroy families down the generations via the behaviour it enables, people it kills, bystanders it causes the deaths of.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":372.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujr7k9","c_root_id_B":"iujqm60","created_at_utc_A":1667251091,"created_at_utc_B":1667250835,"score_A":12,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. What are your sources for these claims? As far as I know, no one considers either of those things to be \"hip and cool\".","human_ref_B":">Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? Why do you think you or anyone should have a say in what other people do with\/to their own bodies?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":256.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iuk2yfj","c_root_id_B":"iujszs7","created_at_utc_A":1667256453,"created_at_utc_B":1667251866,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You can\u2019t use your phone while driving either, does that mean using your phone shoul be illegal even when not driving?","human_ref_B":">if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? What if you don't intend to drive? > think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. Examples? I rarely see barfing and drunk driving portrayed as hip and cool.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4587.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujrydj","c_root_id_B":"iuk2yfj","created_at_utc_A":1667251409,"created_at_utc_B":1667256453,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"There are certainly problems with alcohol. However, there is a \"safe\" way to consume alcohol, while there is no \"safe\" way to consume cigarettes. If you have a single beer with dinner every night for twenty years, you'll likely suffer no ill affects. However, if you smoke a single cigarette with dinner every night for twenty years, you'll significantly increase your risk of heart and lung diseases.","human_ref_B":"You can\u2019t use your phone while driving either, does that mean using your phone shoul be illegal even when not driving?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5044.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"yip181","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"CMV: I think alcohol is just as bad as stuff like cigarettes As you can see from my history I also think stuff like weed and dumb stuff like that is just as bad but for different reasons. Basically my opinion is if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? You know how much people die from alcohol? Context also matters, just because alcohol doesn't kill as many people as cigarettes, doesn't mean it's less bad, think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. For weed and magic mushrooms and stuff, it's more of a personal thing, I understand that it's not as bad, but I still hate it, I don't think you can change my view on that my friend does it and we agreed that he won't talk to me when he's high or anything","c_root_id_A":"iujrydj","c_root_id_B":"iujszs7","created_at_utc_A":1667251409,"created_at_utc_B":1667251866,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"There are certainly problems with alcohol. However, there is a \"safe\" way to consume alcohol, while there is no \"safe\" way to consume cigarettes. If you have a single beer with dinner every night for twenty years, you'll likely suffer no ill affects. However, if you smoke a single cigarette with dinner every night for twenty years, you'll significantly increase your risk of heart and lung diseases.","human_ref_B":">if you can't use it while driving, why can you even use it in the first place? What if you don't intend to drive? > think about how alcohol is more socially acceptable, it's hip and cool to get so drunk you barf all day the next day, it's hip and cool to drunk drive and go as fast as you can down the highway. Examples? I rarely see barfing and drunk driving portrayed as hip and cool.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":457.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluda3p","c_root_id_B":"hlucmww","created_at_utc_A":1637716466,"created_at_utc_B":1637716160,"score_A":60,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"For one, it's not a near 50-50 split amongst the general population; it's about a 48-7-39 split for dem+dem leaning--ind.--gop+gop leaning (https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/politics\/2019\/03\/14\/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think\/). The GOP has won ONE popular vote for president since the 1992 election. Beyond that, this also operates on the assumption that that every individual business is catering to the entire population, which is wrong. Some groups will watch ads on certain mediums more than others, some groups may make up the target consumers more than others. If it were true that putting out views would result in a loss of customers rather than gain, chances are it wouldn't be so prevalent. However, it is; this inconsistency is probably at least partially related to the fact that two of of your premises are majorly flawed. \\*Edit to correct typo in split percentiles.","human_ref_B":"I agree with your sentiment. I want to live in a world where buying a particular brand of pillow or cookies isn't a political choice. However, concider the anger directed at Taylor Swift for refusing to disclose how she felt about Trump. When one company in an industry has a political stance, the silence of the competitors is deafening. Furthermore, when you're the number 3 or 4 brand in your industry, having a political stance can really help your market share. So, while I agree that that's how the world SHOULD work, I don't think it's going to stop any time soon, and we haven't yet reached peak political stance in companies. And I don't blame marketing for pushing political agendas.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":306.0,"score_ratio":8.5714285714} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlue3bk","c_root_id_B":"hludxm9","created_at_utc_A":1637716852,"created_at_utc_B":1637716777,"score_A":27,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"I'm fairly confident that companies have taken this into consideration before announcing their political stance. Most of the companies that take a \"liberal stance\" probably don't have the maga crowd as a target demographic.","human_ref_B":"If you only have 2-5 percent marketshare, 50 percent is potentially a big gain. Nobody gave two shits about chick FIL A as recently as 2010. Then the conservative stuff started coming out, and while they lost some liberal leaning customers, they gained far more republican leaning ones. They are now the third largest fast food chain in the US. Businesses die when no one cares. Half is more than no one.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":75.0,"score_ratio":1.08} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlue3bk","c_root_id_B":"hluduld","created_at_utc_A":1637716852,"created_at_utc_B":1637716737,"score_A":27,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I'm fairly confident that companies have taken this into consideration before announcing their political stance. Most of the companies that take a \"liberal stance\" probably don't have the maga crowd as a target demographic.","human_ref_B":">why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? To appeal to the other half? Few companies have more than 50% market share, no matter what industry they're in. For many it's 1% or less if they're in a crowded market, even the big ones are rarely above 20% unless they have a monopoly for some reason. Furthermore, many companies already skew heavily towards consumers from one party or another, for a variety of reasons - the age group of their consumers, where they mostly sell, their other branding, etc. It's very rare for your actual consumers to be 50\/50 across the parties. If you have 2M Democratic consumers and 1M Republican consumers, and you think you can get 2M more Democratic consumers by shitting on Republicans, that's a no-brainer.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":115.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlucmww","c_root_id_B":"hlue3bk","created_at_utc_A":1637716160,"created_at_utc_B":1637716852,"score_A":7,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"I agree with your sentiment. I want to live in a world where buying a particular brand of pillow or cookies isn't a political choice. However, concider the anger directed at Taylor Swift for refusing to disclose how she felt about Trump. When one company in an industry has a political stance, the silence of the competitors is deafening. Furthermore, when you're the number 3 or 4 brand in your industry, having a political stance can really help your market share. So, while I agree that that's how the world SHOULD work, I don't think it's going to stop any time soon, and we haven't yet reached peak political stance in companies. And I don't blame marketing for pushing political agendas.","human_ref_B":"I'm fairly confident that companies have taken this into consideration before announcing their political stance. Most of the companies that take a \"liberal stance\" probably don't have the maga crowd as a target demographic.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":692.0,"score_ratio":3.8571428571} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hludrxr","c_root_id_B":"hlue3bk","created_at_utc_A":1637716702,"created_at_utc_B":1637716852,"score_A":5,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"By taking a political stance it speaks to a customer base. Remember when Goya supported conservatives and a bunch of party members including the president endorsed them?","human_ref_B":"I'm fairly confident that companies have taken this into consideration before announcing their political stance. Most of the companies that take a \"liberal stance\" probably don't have the maga crowd as a target demographic.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":150.0,"score_ratio":5.4} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluds2p","c_root_id_B":"hlue3bk","created_at_utc_A":1637716704,"created_at_utc_B":1637716852,"score_A":2,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"You may have an audience skewed in one audience or another, and it makes sense to expression the opinion of your customers. In the most extreme case, you can think of a OAN or Pod Save America as companies that would be nothing without their political stances. Less extreme cases including the NBA versus NASCAR etc.","human_ref_B":"I'm fairly confident that companies have taken this into consideration before announcing their political stance. Most of the companies that take a \"liberal stance\" probably don't have the maga crowd as a target demographic.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":148.0,"score_ratio":13.5} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluduld","c_root_id_B":"hludxm9","created_at_utc_A":1637716737,"created_at_utc_B":1637716777,"score_A":18,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":">why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? To appeal to the other half? Few companies have more than 50% market share, no matter what industry they're in. For many it's 1% or less if they're in a crowded market, even the big ones are rarely above 20% unless they have a monopoly for some reason. Furthermore, many companies already skew heavily towards consumers from one party or another, for a variety of reasons - the age group of their consumers, where they mostly sell, their other branding, etc. It's very rare for your actual consumers to be 50\/50 across the parties. If you have 2M Democratic consumers and 1M Republican consumers, and you think you can get 2M more Democratic consumers by shitting on Republicans, that's a no-brainer.","human_ref_B":"If you only have 2-5 percent marketshare, 50 percent is potentially a big gain. Nobody gave two shits about chick FIL A as recently as 2010. Then the conservative stuff started coming out, and while they lost some liberal leaning customers, they gained far more republican leaning ones. They are now the third largest fast food chain in the US. Businesses die when no one cares. Half is more than no one.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":40.0,"score_ratio":1.3888888889} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hludxm9","c_root_id_B":"hlucmww","created_at_utc_A":1637716777,"created_at_utc_B":1637716160,"score_A":25,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"If you only have 2-5 percent marketshare, 50 percent is potentially a big gain. Nobody gave two shits about chick FIL A as recently as 2010. Then the conservative stuff started coming out, and while they lost some liberal leaning customers, they gained far more republican leaning ones. They are now the third largest fast food chain in the US. Businesses die when no one cares. Half is more than no one.","human_ref_B":"I agree with your sentiment. I want to live in a world where buying a particular brand of pillow or cookies isn't a political choice. However, concider the anger directed at Taylor Swift for refusing to disclose how she felt about Trump. When one company in an industry has a political stance, the silence of the competitors is deafening. Furthermore, when you're the number 3 or 4 brand in your industry, having a political stance can really help your market share. So, while I agree that that's how the world SHOULD work, I don't think it's going to stop any time soon, and we haven't yet reached peak political stance in companies. And I don't blame marketing for pushing political agendas.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":617.0,"score_ratio":3.5714285714} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hludxm9","c_root_id_B":"hludrxr","created_at_utc_A":1637716777,"created_at_utc_B":1637716702,"score_A":25,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If you only have 2-5 percent marketshare, 50 percent is potentially a big gain. Nobody gave two shits about chick FIL A as recently as 2010. Then the conservative stuff started coming out, and while they lost some liberal leaning customers, they gained far more republican leaning ones. They are now the third largest fast food chain in the US. Businesses die when no one cares. Half is more than no one.","human_ref_B":"By taking a political stance it speaks to a customer base. Remember when Goya supported conservatives and a bunch of party members including the president endorsed them?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":75.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hludxm9","c_root_id_B":"hluds2p","created_at_utc_A":1637716777,"created_at_utc_B":1637716704,"score_A":25,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If you only have 2-5 percent marketshare, 50 percent is potentially a big gain. Nobody gave two shits about chick FIL A as recently as 2010. Then the conservative stuff started coming out, and while they lost some liberal leaning customers, they gained far more republican leaning ones. They are now the third largest fast food chain in the US. Businesses die when no one cares. Half is more than no one.","human_ref_B":"You may have an audience skewed in one audience or another, and it makes sense to expression the opinion of your customers. In the most extreme case, you can think of a OAN or Pod Save America as companies that would be nothing without their political stances. Less extreme cases including the NBA versus NASCAR etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":73.0,"score_ratio":12.5} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluduld","c_root_id_B":"hlucmww","created_at_utc_A":1637716737,"created_at_utc_B":1637716160,"score_A":18,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? To appeal to the other half? Few companies have more than 50% market share, no matter what industry they're in. For many it's 1% or less if they're in a crowded market, even the big ones are rarely above 20% unless they have a monopoly for some reason. Furthermore, many companies already skew heavily towards consumers from one party or another, for a variety of reasons - the age group of their consumers, where they mostly sell, their other branding, etc. It's very rare for your actual consumers to be 50\/50 across the parties. If you have 2M Democratic consumers and 1M Republican consumers, and you think you can get 2M more Democratic consumers by shitting on Republicans, that's a no-brainer.","human_ref_B":"I agree with your sentiment. I want to live in a world where buying a particular brand of pillow or cookies isn't a political choice. However, concider the anger directed at Taylor Swift for refusing to disclose how she felt about Trump. When one company in an industry has a political stance, the silence of the competitors is deafening. Furthermore, when you're the number 3 or 4 brand in your industry, having a political stance can really help your market share. So, while I agree that that's how the world SHOULD work, I don't think it's going to stop any time soon, and we haven't yet reached peak political stance in companies. And I don't blame marketing for pushing political agendas.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":577.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hludrxr","c_root_id_B":"hluduld","created_at_utc_A":1637716702,"created_at_utc_B":1637716737,"score_A":5,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"By taking a political stance it speaks to a customer base. Remember when Goya supported conservatives and a bunch of party members including the president endorsed them?","human_ref_B":">why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? To appeal to the other half? Few companies have more than 50% market share, no matter what industry they're in. For many it's 1% or less if they're in a crowded market, even the big ones are rarely above 20% unless they have a monopoly for some reason. Furthermore, many companies already skew heavily towards consumers from one party or another, for a variety of reasons - the age group of their consumers, where they mostly sell, their other branding, etc. It's very rare for your actual consumers to be 50\/50 across the parties. If you have 2M Democratic consumers and 1M Republican consumers, and you think you can get 2M more Democratic consumers by shitting on Republicans, that's a no-brainer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35.0,"score_ratio":3.6} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluduld","c_root_id_B":"hluds2p","created_at_utc_A":1637716737,"created_at_utc_B":1637716704,"score_A":18,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? To appeal to the other half? Few companies have more than 50% market share, no matter what industry they're in. For many it's 1% or less if they're in a crowded market, even the big ones are rarely above 20% unless they have a monopoly for some reason. Furthermore, many companies already skew heavily towards consumers from one party or another, for a variety of reasons - the age group of their consumers, where they mostly sell, their other branding, etc. It's very rare for your actual consumers to be 50\/50 across the parties. If you have 2M Democratic consumers and 1M Republican consumers, and you think you can get 2M more Democratic consumers by shitting on Republicans, that's a no-brainer.","human_ref_B":"You may have an audience skewed in one audience or another, and it makes sense to expression the opinion of your customers. In the most extreme case, you can think of a OAN or Pod Save America as companies that would be nothing without their political stances. Less extreme cases including the NBA versus NASCAR etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlucmww","c_root_id_B":"hluqo4w","created_at_utc_A":1637716160,"created_at_utc_B":1637722790,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I agree with your sentiment. I want to live in a world where buying a particular brand of pillow or cookies isn't a political choice. However, concider the anger directed at Taylor Swift for refusing to disclose how she felt about Trump. When one company in an industry has a political stance, the silence of the competitors is deafening. Furthermore, when you're the number 3 or 4 brand in your industry, having a political stance can really help your market share. So, while I agree that that's how the world SHOULD work, I don't think it's going to stop any time soon, and we haven't yet reached peak political stance in companies. And I don't blame marketing for pushing political agendas.","human_ref_B":"Gen Z is the largest generation and they are increasingly becoming spenders. In June 2021, YouGov released some data that nearly 60% of this generation want companies to take a stance. So companies are in a position where they are encouraged, sometimes pressured, to take a stance on popular issues. Companies that mandate a no stance policy can get a lot of shit for it. Now... Corporations don't actually care about this stuff so they'll take the stance that benefits them the most financially. This depends company by company, but looking at the two parties we can make some assumptions. This is purely for a statistical point, I'm not making a rude assumption or generalization about intelligence or cultural relevance for half the country. The left typically has better educated voters living on the coasts. Better educated means more money. The coasts are the cultural hubs of the united states. The left is also more aligned with European political ideologies. Therefore, if you're a company and you see those facts, aligning yourself with the left means: 1) exposing yourself to the half of the country with more disposable income. 2) having people wear or use your brand in cities that are more likely to receive attention from the rest of the country or the world (i mean, all the street style snipers are in New York or LA). 3) taking a stance that would align well with an even larger market in the EU and facilitate global expansion. Edited a typo","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6630.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hludrxr","c_root_id_B":"hluqo4w","created_at_utc_A":1637716702,"created_at_utc_B":1637722790,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"By taking a political stance it speaks to a customer base. Remember when Goya supported conservatives and a bunch of party members including the president endorsed them?","human_ref_B":"Gen Z is the largest generation and they are increasingly becoming spenders. In June 2021, YouGov released some data that nearly 60% of this generation want companies to take a stance. So companies are in a position where they are encouraged, sometimes pressured, to take a stance on popular issues. Companies that mandate a no stance policy can get a lot of shit for it. Now... Corporations don't actually care about this stuff so they'll take the stance that benefits them the most financially. This depends company by company, but looking at the two parties we can make some assumptions. This is purely for a statistical point, I'm not making a rude assumption or generalization about intelligence or cultural relevance for half the country. The left typically has better educated voters living on the coasts. Better educated means more money. The coasts are the cultural hubs of the united states. The left is also more aligned with European political ideologies. Therefore, if you're a company and you see those facts, aligning yourself with the left means: 1) exposing yourself to the half of the country with more disposable income. 2) having people wear or use your brand in cities that are more likely to receive attention from the rest of the country or the world (i mean, all the street style snipers are in New York or LA). 3) taking a stance that would align well with an even larger market in the EU and facilitate global expansion. Edited a typo","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6088.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluqo4w","c_root_id_B":"hlumli3","created_at_utc_A":1637722790,"created_at_utc_B":1637720860,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Gen Z is the largest generation and they are increasingly becoming spenders. In June 2021, YouGov released some data that nearly 60% of this generation want companies to take a stance. So companies are in a position where they are encouraged, sometimes pressured, to take a stance on popular issues. Companies that mandate a no stance policy can get a lot of shit for it. Now... Corporations don't actually care about this stuff so they'll take the stance that benefits them the most financially. This depends company by company, but looking at the two parties we can make some assumptions. This is purely for a statistical point, I'm not making a rude assumption or generalization about intelligence or cultural relevance for half the country. The left typically has better educated voters living on the coasts. Better educated means more money. The coasts are the cultural hubs of the united states. The left is also more aligned with European political ideologies. Therefore, if you're a company and you see those facts, aligning yourself with the left means: 1) exposing yourself to the half of the country with more disposable income. 2) having people wear or use your brand in cities that are more likely to receive attention from the rest of the country or the world (i mean, all the street style snipers are in New York or LA). 3) taking a stance that would align well with an even larger market in the EU and facilitate global expansion. Edited a typo","human_ref_B":">With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, There is your problem. There ~isn't~ a 50\/50 split amongst Americans; that ratio is amongst voters. More people in the US hold views that align more with the left than the right, but the Republican party holds more sway with older people, and it is easier to convince older people to vote. Older people, however, also tend to be more frugal, which means that advertising to them is less effective than advertising to a younger crowd. Also, demographics shifts and the nature of humanity means that left-leaning views age much better than right-leaning views, so embracing a conservative position would likely lead to a scandal when that conservative position is later understood to be troublesome. Would you be so eager to eat at Olive Garden if you found out that their motto used to be \"Olive Garden: When you're here, you're family! Family slaves and servents eat free.\" or if Fruit Loops were \"Frutier than a homo in springtime\"?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1930.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluipg9","c_root_id_B":"hluqo4w","created_at_utc_A":1637719021,"created_at_utc_B":1637722790,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Let me say first, personally I agree that companies should stay out of it. That being said, there is a reason they do. I'd argue in today's political climate, failing to take a stance is baseline medium-risk. Just look at when BLM was a major topic a year or so ago. I've personally seen people singled out for \"not\" supporting one side. Kind of a \"if you're not with us, you're against us\" mentality. Look at how many products advertise \"Gluten free\" or \"Non-GMO\". I've seen Meat advertised as \"gluten free\" and salt advertised as \"non-GMO\". At some point, someone realized that slapping that label on would increase sales or not putting that label on would decrease sales. The same holds true for political stances. If a company preforms poorly after taking a stance there are two potential causes. Either 1. The management is highly political and just overrode any good logical choices. I think this is more likely with smaller operations. Or 2. Their market research team dropped the ball. If someone came to the Walmart executives and said \"Sales will drop if we don't stop selling guns. Most of our customers don't agree with that.\" then they would be stupid to ignore that. If then, sales drop because they stopped selling guns, then they need to have a talk with their research team.","human_ref_B":"Gen Z is the largest generation and they are increasingly becoming spenders. In June 2021, YouGov released some data that nearly 60% of this generation want companies to take a stance. So companies are in a position where they are encouraged, sometimes pressured, to take a stance on popular issues. Companies that mandate a no stance policy can get a lot of shit for it. Now... Corporations don't actually care about this stuff so they'll take the stance that benefits them the most financially. This depends company by company, but looking at the two parties we can make some assumptions. This is purely for a statistical point, I'm not making a rude assumption or generalization about intelligence or cultural relevance for half the country. The left typically has better educated voters living on the coasts. Better educated means more money. The coasts are the cultural hubs of the united states. The left is also more aligned with European political ideologies. Therefore, if you're a company and you see those facts, aligning yourself with the left means: 1) exposing yourself to the half of the country with more disposable income. 2) having people wear or use your brand in cities that are more likely to receive attention from the rest of the country or the world (i mean, all the street style snipers are in New York or LA). 3) taking a stance that would align well with an even larger market in the EU and facilitate global expansion. Edited a typo","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3769.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluqo4w","c_root_id_B":"hluds2p","created_at_utc_A":1637722790,"created_at_utc_B":1637716704,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Gen Z is the largest generation and they are increasingly becoming spenders. In June 2021, YouGov released some data that nearly 60% of this generation want companies to take a stance. So companies are in a position where they are encouraged, sometimes pressured, to take a stance on popular issues. Companies that mandate a no stance policy can get a lot of shit for it. Now... Corporations don't actually care about this stuff so they'll take the stance that benefits them the most financially. This depends company by company, but looking at the two parties we can make some assumptions. This is purely for a statistical point, I'm not making a rude assumption or generalization about intelligence or cultural relevance for half the country. The left typically has better educated voters living on the coasts. Better educated means more money. The coasts are the cultural hubs of the united states. The left is also more aligned with European political ideologies. Therefore, if you're a company and you see those facts, aligning yourself with the left means: 1) exposing yourself to the half of the country with more disposable income. 2) having people wear or use your brand in cities that are more likely to receive attention from the rest of the country or the world (i mean, all the street style snipers are in New York or LA). 3) taking a stance that would align well with an even larger market in the EU and facilitate global expansion. Edited a typo","human_ref_B":"You may have an audience skewed in one audience or another, and it makes sense to expression the opinion of your customers. In the most extreme case, you can think of a OAN or Pod Save America as companies that would be nothing without their political stances. Less extreme cases including the NBA versus NASCAR etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6086.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluipg9","c_root_id_B":"hlvcaou","created_at_utc_A":1637719021,"created_at_utc_B":1637734404,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Let me say first, personally I agree that companies should stay out of it. That being said, there is a reason they do. I'd argue in today's political climate, failing to take a stance is baseline medium-risk. Just look at when BLM was a major topic a year or so ago. I've personally seen people singled out for \"not\" supporting one side. Kind of a \"if you're not with us, you're against us\" mentality. Look at how many products advertise \"Gluten free\" or \"Non-GMO\". I've seen Meat advertised as \"gluten free\" and salt advertised as \"non-GMO\". At some point, someone realized that slapping that label on would increase sales or not putting that label on would decrease sales. The same holds true for political stances. If a company preforms poorly after taking a stance there are two potential causes. Either 1. The management is highly political and just overrode any good logical choices. I think this is more likely with smaller operations. Or 2. Their market research team dropped the ball. If someone came to the Walmart executives and said \"Sales will drop if we don't stop selling guns. Most of our customers don't agree with that.\" then they would be stupid to ignore that. If then, sales drop because they stopped selling guns, then they need to have a talk with their research team.","human_ref_B":"Imagine you\u2019re an unknown brand of\u2026 let\u2019s say coffee mugs. You have a tiny market share, say 0.1%. Then you issue a press release that you won\u2019t hire immigrants (don\u2019t do this. It\u2019s illegal). Suddenly everyone knows your company because you got all over the news. Half the country will never buy from you because you\u2019re an asshole. In fact, you lost half of your 0.1% market share overnight. The other half of the country is just as xenophobic as you are (or pretend to be). They now not only know you exist but also get to express their hate of immigrants when buying coffee mugs. So 1% of them decide to buy from you. Your market share is hard-capped at 50% because half the country won\u2019t buy from you but that other half is now more likely to buy from you because they know and like you. So your market share booms from 0.1% to 0.55% overnight. And those customers are loyal because they\u2019re driven by bigotry and bigots aren\u2019t casual about their bigotry. It\u2019s important to them. Sound unrealistic? Black Rifle Coffee Co. did something similar. They marketed their coffee to gun fanatics. I\u2019ve talked to people who will only drink that brand of coffee. Not one of them has touted the flavor or price or convenience (though I\u2019m sure some people do like it). They all love it because the company likes guns. The company lost a lot of customers when it said it didn\u2019t support Kyle Rittenhouse so it\u2019s definitely a dangerous game to play but they\u2019re probably a lot better off today for playing politics than they would have been if they hadn\u2019t. Larger companies are a different story. I definitely wouldn\u2019t suggest the CEO of McDonald\u2019s take a stance on abortion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15383.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlvcaou","c_root_id_B":"hluds2p","created_at_utc_A":1637734404,"created_at_utc_B":1637716704,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Imagine you\u2019re an unknown brand of\u2026 let\u2019s say coffee mugs. You have a tiny market share, say 0.1%. Then you issue a press release that you won\u2019t hire immigrants (don\u2019t do this. It\u2019s illegal). Suddenly everyone knows your company because you got all over the news. Half the country will never buy from you because you\u2019re an asshole. In fact, you lost half of your 0.1% market share overnight. The other half of the country is just as xenophobic as you are (or pretend to be). They now not only know you exist but also get to express their hate of immigrants when buying coffee mugs. So 1% of them decide to buy from you. Your market share is hard-capped at 50% because half the country won\u2019t buy from you but that other half is now more likely to buy from you because they know and like you. So your market share booms from 0.1% to 0.55% overnight. And those customers are loyal because they\u2019re driven by bigotry and bigots aren\u2019t casual about their bigotry. It\u2019s important to them. Sound unrealistic? Black Rifle Coffee Co. did something similar. They marketed their coffee to gun fanatics. I\u2019ve talked to people who will only drink that brand of coffee. Not one of them has touted the flavor or price or convenience (though I\u2019m sure some people do like it). They all love it because the company likes guns. The company lost a lot of customers when it said it didn\u2019t support Kyle Rittenhouse so it\u2019s definitely a dangerous game to play but they\u2019re probably a lot better off today for playing politics than they would have been if they hadn\u2019t. Larger companies are a different story. I definitely wouldn\u2019t suggest the CEO of McDonald\u2019s take a stance on abortion.","human_ref_B":"You may have an audience skewed in one audience or another, and it makes sense to expression the opinion of your customers. In the most extreme case, you can think of a OAN or Pod Save America as companies that would be nothing without their political stances. Less extreme cases including the NBA versus NASCAR etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17700.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlvcaou","c_root_id_B":"hlus1ve","created_at_utc_A":1637734404,"created_at_utc_B":1637723438,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Imagine you\u2019re an unknown brand of\u2026 let\u2019s say coffee mugs. You have a tiny market share, say 0.1%. Then you issue a press release that you won\u2019t hire immigrants (don\u2019t do this. It\u2019s illegal). Suddenly everyone knows your company because you got all over the news. Half the country will never buy from you because you\u2019re an asshole. In fact, you lost half of your 0.1% market share overnight. The other half of the country is just as xenophobic as you are (or pretend to be). They now not only know you exist but also get to express their hate of immigrants when buying coffee mugs. So 1% of them decide to buy from you. Your market share is hard-capped at 50% because half the country won\u2019t buy from you but that other half is now more likely to buy from you because they know and like you. So your market share booms from 0.1% to 0.55% overnight. And those customers are loyal because they\u2019re driven by bigotry and bigots aren\u2019t casual about their bigotry. It\u2019s important to them. Sound unrealistic? Black Rifle Coffee Co. did something similar. They marketed their coffee to gun fanatics. I\u2019ve talked to people who will only drink that brand of coffee. Not one of them has touted the flavor or price or convenience (though I\u2019m sure some people do like it). They all love it because the company likes guns. The company lost a lot of customers when it said it didn\u2019t support Kyle Rittenhouse so it\u2019s definitely a dangerous game to play but they\u2019re probably a lot better off today for playing politics than they would have been if they hadn\u2019t. Larger companies are a different story. I definitely wouldn\u2019t suggest the CEO of McDonald\u2019s take a stance on abortion.","human_ref_B":"Way back in 1990, Michael Jordan was asked to give a political endorsement for a Democrat candidate, and he declined with this famous quote: \"Republicans buy sneakers too\". Politics had nothing to do with his area of expertise, and he didn't want to split his audience unnecessarily. And it worked for him. But that was 30 years ago, and the world has changed. Now political activists are no longer content with companies staying neutral and \"non-political\". Today political activists demand statements of explicit support, and target anyone in their way with an \"if your not with us you're against us\" mentality. It's not always obvious which way to respond to these demands is actually the most optimal. Sometimes a company yields to demands, chooses a side, and gets soundly punished by customers who chose the other side. Other times it works out fine. But remaining neutral isn't the \"safe\" choice anymore, its just another risky option out of several.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10966.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlvcaou","c_root_id_B":"hlut77p","created_at_utc_A":1637734404,"created_at_utc_B":1637723996,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Imagine you\u2019re an unknown brand of\u2026 let\u2019s say coffee mugs. You have a tiny market share, say 0.1%. Then you issue a press release that you won\u2019t hire immigrants (don\u2019t do this. It\u2019s illegal). Suddenly everyone knows your company because you got all over the news. Half the country will never buy from you because you\u2019re an asshole. In fact, you lost half of your 0.1% market share overnight. The other half of the country is just as xenophobic as you are (or pretend to be). They now not only know you exist but also get to express their hate of immigrants when buying coffee mugs. So 1% of them decide to buy from you. Your market share is hard-capped at 50% because half the country won\u2019t buy from you but that other half is now more likely to buy from you because they know and like you. So your market share booms from 0.1% to 0.55% overnight. And those customers are loyal because they\u2019re driven by bigotry and bigots aren\u2019t casual about their bigotry. It\u2019s important to them. Sound unrealistic? Black Rifle Coffee Co. did something similar. They marketed their coffee to gun fanatics. I\u2019ve talked to people who will only drink that brand of coffee. Not one of them has touted the flavor or price or convenience (though I\u2019m sure some people do like it). They all love it because the company likes guns. The company lost a lot of customers when it said it didn\u2019t support Kyle Rittenhouse so it\u2019s definitely a dangerous game to play but they\u2019re probably a lot better off today for playing politics than they would have been if they hadn\u2019t. Larger companies are a different story. I definitely wouldn\u2019t suggest the CEO of McDonald\u2019s take a stance on abortion.","human_ref_B":"Companies consistently take strong political stances. Those stances just don't fall outside the realm of acceptable discourse (eg they're always pro-business). For example, businesses express themselves politically by funding politicians who are pro tax cuts. This stance isn't seen as being divisive so ppl don't talk about it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10408.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlvcaou","c_root_id_B":"hlv7hz5","created_at_utc_A":1637734404,"created_at_utc_B":1637731516,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Imagine you\u2019re an unknown brand of\u2026 let\u2019s say coffee mugs. You have a tiny market share, say 0.1%. Then you issue a press release that you won\u2019t hire immigrants (don\u2019t do this. It\u2019s illegal). Suddenly everyone knows your company because you got all over the news. Half the country will never buy from you because you\u2019re an asshole. In fact, you lost half of your 0.1% market share overnight. The other half of the country is just as xenophobic as you are (or pretend to be). They now not only know you exist but also get to express their hate of immigrants when buying coffee mugs. So 1% of them decide to buy from you. Your market share is hard-capped at 50% because half the country won\u2019t buy from you but that other half is now more likely to buy from you because they know and like you. So your market share booms from 0.1% to 0.55% overnight. And those customers are loyal because they\u2019re driven by bigotry and bigots aren\u2019t casual about their bigotry. It\u2019s important to them. Sound unrealistic? Black Rifle Coffee Co. did something similar. They marketed their coffee to gun fanatics. I\u2019ve talked to people who will only drink that brand of coffee. Not one of them has touted the flavor or price or convenience (though I\u2019m sure some people do like it). They all love it because the company likes guns. The company lost a lot of customers when it said it didn\u2019t support Kyle Rittenhouse so it\u2019s definitely a dangerous game to play but they\u2019re probably a lot better off today for playing politics than they would have been if they hadn\u2019t. Larger companies are a different story. I definitely wouldn\u2019t suggest the CEO of McDonald\u2019s take a stance on abortion.","human_ref_B":"Counterpoint: > With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans I doubt there's any such split. The media just makes it look that way. > Business and politics has no reason to be in association. I disagree. I sorta care about the overall views of companies I do business with. > Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain. This is incorrect. Because if it were correct and truly hurting profits in a significant way then it wouldn't be happening so often.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2888.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluipg9","c_root_id_B":"hlumli3","created_at_utc_A":1637719021,"created_at_utc_B":1637720860,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Let me say first, personally I agree that companies should stay out of it. That being said, there is a reason they do. I'd argue in today's political climate, failing to take a stance is baseline medium-risk. Just look at when BLM was a major topic a year or so ago. I've personally seen people singled out for \"not\" supporting one side. Kind of a \"if you're not with us, you're against us\" mentality. Look at how many products advertise \"Gluten free\" or \"Non-GMO\". I've seen Meat advertised as \"gluten free\" and salt advertised as \"non-GMO\". At some point, someone realized that slapping that label on would increase sales or not putting that label on would decrease sales. The same holds true for political stances. If a company preforms poorly after taking a stance there are two potential causes. Either 1. The management is highly political and just overrode any good logical choices. I think this is more likely with smaller operations. Or 2. Their market research team dropped the ball. If someone came to the Walmart executives and said \"Sales will drop if we don't stop selling guns. Most of our customers don't agree with that.\" then they would be stupid to ignore that. If then, sales drop because they stopped selling guns, then they need to have a talk with their research team.","human_ref_B":">With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, There is your problem. There ~isn't~ a 50\/50 split amongst Americans; that ratio is amongst voters. More people in the US hold views that align more with the left than the right, but the Republican party holds more sway with older people, and it is easier to convince older people to vote. Older people, however, also tend to be more frugal, which means that advertising to them is less effective than advertising to a younger crowd. Also, demographics shifts and the nature of humanity means that left-leaning views age much better than right-leaning views, so embracing a conservative position would likely lead to a scandal when that conservative position is later understood to be troublesome. Would you be so eager to eat at Olive Garden if you found out that their motto used to be \"Olive Garden: When you're here, you're family! Family slaves and servents eat free.\" or if Fruit Loops were \"Frutier than a homo in springtime\"?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1839.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluds2p","c_root_id_B":"hlumli3","created_at_utc_A":1637716704,"created_at_utc_B":1637720860,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You may have an audience skewed in one audience or another, and it makes sense to expression the opinion of your customers. In the most extreme case, you can think of a OAN or Pod Save America as companies that would be nothing without their political stances. Less extreme cases including the NBA versus NASCAR etc.","human_ref_B":">With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, There is your problem. There ~isn't~ a 50\/50 split amongst Americans; that ratio is amongst voters. More people in the US hold views that align more with the left than the right, but the Republican party holds more sway with older people, and it is easier to convince older people to vote. Older people, however, also tend to be more frugal, which means that advertising to them is less effective than advertising to a younger crowd. Also, demographics shifts and the nature of humanity means that left-leaning views age much better than right-leaning views, so embracing a conservative position would likely lead to a scandal when that conservative position is later understood to be troublesome. Would you be so eager to eat at Olive Garden if you found out that their motto used to be \"Olive Garden: When you're here, you're family! Family slaves and servents eat free.\" or if Fruit Loops were \"Frutier than a homo in springtime\"?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4156.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlwgajk","c_root_id_B":"hluipg9","created_at_utc_A":1637762603,"created_at_utc_B":1637719021,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes it works, sometimes not, it depends on the product. Examples: A beer company in our country took an anti-LGBT stance. They did not lose profits, because the kind of people who buy their beer (cheap crap lager) are almost all rednecks who agree with this philosophy. In fact, their beer temporarily gained a cult following due to that, despite being below average compared to their competition. A pantihose producer in my country took a strong pro-Feminist and Pro-LGBT stance. They did not lose any profits, and actually gained a lot, since most of their customers are young women, who are almost always pro Feminist and usually proLGBTQ. The more controversy it gained, the better brand recognition they got. Book retailer in my country took a rather gentle pro-Left stance and had their shop destroyed by Right Wing rioters. Since then the book retailer retaliated hard, and doubled down on being not just pro-LGBT and pro-Left but being openly anti-Right, and their profits soared. Turns out Leftists read more books than Righwingers.","human_ref_B":"Let me say first, personally I agree that companies should stay out of it. That being said, there is a reason they do. I'd argue in today's political climate, failing to take a stance is baseline medium-risk. Just look at when BLM was a major topic a year or so ago. I've personally seen people singled out for \"not\" supporting one side. Kind of a \"if you're not with us, you're against us\" mentality. Look at how many products advertise \"Gluten free\" or \"Non-GMO\". I've seen Meat advertised as \"gluten free\" and salt advertised as \"non-GMO\". At some point, someone realized that slapping that label on would increase sales or not putting that label on would decrease sales. The same holds true for political stances. If a company preforms poorly after taking a stance there are two potential causes. Either 1. The management is highly political and just overrode any good logical choices. I think this is more likely with smaller operations. Or 2. Their market research team dropped the ball. If someone came to the Walmart executives and said \"Sales will drop if we don't stop selling guns. Most of our customers don't agree with that.\" then they would be stupid to ignore that. If then, sales drop because they stopped selling guns, then they need to have a talk with their research team.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":43582.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluds2p","c_root_id_B":"hluipg9","created_at_utc_A":1637716704,"created_at_utc_B":1637719021,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You may have an audience skewed in one audience or another, and it makes sense to expression the opinion of your customers. In the most extreme case, you can think of a OAN or Pod Save America as companies that would be nothing without their political stances. Less extreme cases including the NBA versus NASCAR etc.","human_ref_B":"Let me say first, personally I agree that companies should stay out of it. That being said, there is a reason they do. I'd argue in today's political climate, failing to take a stance is baseline medium-risk. Just look at when BLM was a major topic a year or so ago. I've personally seen people singled out for \"not\" supporting one side. Kind of a \"if you're not with us, you're against us\" mentality. Look at how many products advertise \"Gluten free\" or \"Non-GMO\". I've seen Meat advertised as \"gluten free\" and salt advertised as \"non-GMO\". At some point, someone realized that slapping that label on would increase sales or not putting that label on would decrease sales. The same holds true for political stances. If a company preforms poorly after taking a stance there are two potential causes. Either 1. The management is highly political and just overrode any good logical choices. I think this is more likely with smaller operations. Or 2. Their market research team dropped the ball. If someone came to the Walmart executives and said \"Sales will drop if we don't stop selling guns. Most of our customers don't agree with that.\" then they would be stupid to ignore that. If then, sales drop because they stopped selling guns, then they need to have a talk with their research team.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2317.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hluds2p","c_root_id_B":"hlwgajk","created_at_utc_A":1637716704,"created_at_utc_B":1637762603,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You may have an audience skewed in one audience or another, and it makes sense to expression the opinion of your customers. In the most extreme case, you can think of a OAN or Pod Save America as companies that would be nothing without their political stances. Less extreme cases including the NBA versus NASCAR etc.","human_ref_B":"Sometimes it works, sometimes not, it depends on the product. Examples: A beer company in our country took an anti-LGBT stance. They did not lose profits, because the kind of people who buy their beer (cheap crap lager) are almost all rednecks who agree with this philosophy. In fact, their beer temporarily gained a cult following due to that, despite being below average compared to their competition. A pantihose producer in my country took a strong pro-Feminist and Pro-LGBT stance. They did not lose any profits, and actually gained a lot, since most of their customers are young women, who are almost always pro Feminist and usually proLGBTQ. The more controversy it gained, the better brand recognition they got. Book retailer in my country took a rather gentle pro-Left stance and had their shop destroyed by Right Wing rioters. Since then the book retailer retaliated hard, and doubled down on being not just pro-LGBT and pro-Left but being openly anti-Right, and their profits soared. Turns out Leftists read more books than Righwingers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":45899.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlwgajk","c_root_id_B":"hlus1ve","created_at_utc_A":1637762603,"created_at_utc_B":1637723438,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes it works, sometimes not, it depends on the product. Examples: A beer company in our country took an anti-LGBT stance. They did not lose profits, because the kind of people who buy their beer (cheap crap lager) are almost all rednecks who agree with this philosophy. In fact, their beer temporarily gained a cult following due to that, despite being below average compared to their competition. A pantihose producer in my country took a strong pro-Feminist and Pro-LGBT stance. They did not lose any profits, and actually gained a lot, since most of their customers are young women, who are almost always pro Feminist and usually proLGBTQ. The more controversy it gained, the better brand recognition they got. Book retailer in my country took a rather gentle pro-Left stance and had their shop destroyed by Right Wing rioters. Since then the book retailer retaliated hard, and doubled down on being not just pro-LGBT and pro-Left but being openly anti-Right, and their profits soared. Turns out Leftists read more books than Righwingers.","human_ref_B":"Way back in 1990, Michael Jordan was asked to give a political endorsement for a Democrat candidate, and he declined with this famous quote: \"Republicans buy sneakers too\". Politics had nothing to do with his area of expertise, and he didn't want to split his audience unnecessarily. And it worked for him. But that was 30 years ago, and the world has changed. Now political activists are no longer content with companies staying neutral and \"non-political\". Today political activists demand statements of explicit support, and target anyone in their way with an \"if your not with us you're against us\" mentality. It's not always obvious which way to respond to these demands is actually the most optimal. Sometimes a company yields to demands, chooses a side, and gets soundly punished by customers who chose the other side. Other times it works out fine. But remaining neutral isn't the \"safe\" choice anymore, its just another risky option out of several.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":39165.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlut77p","c_root_id_B":"hlwgajk","created_at_utc_A":1637723996,"created_at_utc_B":1637762603,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Companies consistently take strong political stances. Those stances just don't fall outside the realm of acceptable discourse (eg they're always pro-business). For example, businesses express themselves politically by funding politicians who are pro tax cuts. This stance isn't seen as being divisive so ppl don't talk about it.","human_ref_B":"Sometimes it works, sometimes not, it depends on the product. Examples: A beer company in our country took an anti-LGBT stance. They did not lose profits, because the kind of people who buy their beer (cheap crap lager) are almost all rednecks who agree with this philosophy. In fact, their beer temporarily gained a cult following due to that, despite being below average compared to their competition. A pantihose producer in my country took a strong pro-Feminist and Pro-LGBT stance. They did not lose any profits, and actually gained a lot, since most of their customers are young women, who are almost always pro Feminist and usually proLGBTQ. The more controversy it gained, the better brand recognition they got. Book retailer in my country took a rather gentle pro-Left stance and had their shop destroyed by Right Wing rioters. Since then the book retailer retaliated hard, and doubled down on being not just pro-LGBT and pro-Left but being openly anti-Right, and their profits soared. Turns out Leftists read more books than Righwingers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38607.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlv7hz5","c_root_id_B":"hlwgajk","created_at_utc_A":1637731516,"created_at_utc_B":1637762603,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Counterpoint: > With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans I doubt there's any such split. The media just makes it look that way. > Business and politics has no reason to be in association. I disagree. I sorta care about the overall views of companies I do business with. > Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain. This is incorrect. Because if it were correct and truly hurting profits in a significant way then it wouldn't be happening so often.","human_ref_B":"Sometimes it works, sometimes not, it depends on the product. Examples: A beer company in our country took an anti-LGBT stance. They did not lose profits, because the kind of people who buy their beer (cheap crap lager) are almost all rednecks who agree with this philosophy. In fact, their beer temporarily gained a cult following due to that, despite being below average compared to their competition. A pantihose producer in my country took a strong pro-Feminist and Pro-LGBT stance. They did not lose any profits, and actually gained a lot, since most of their customers are young women, who are almost always pro Feminist and usually proLGBTQ. The more controversy it gained, the better brand recognition they got. Book retailer in my country took a rather gentle pro-Left stance and had their shop destroyed by Right Wing rioters. Since then the book retailer retaliated hard, and doubled down on being not just pro-LGBT and pro-Left but being openly anti-Right, and their profits soared. Turns out Leftists read more books than Righwingers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31087.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlwgajk","c_root_id_B":"hlwb7b3","created_at_utc_A":1637762603,"created_at_utc_B":1637759964,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes it works, sometimes not, it depends on the product. Examples: A beer company in our country took an anti-LGBT stance. They did not lose profits, because the kind of people who buy their beer (cheap crap lager) are almost all rednecks who agree with this philosophy. In fact, their beer temporarily gained a cult following due to that, despite being below average compared to their competition. A pantihose producer in my country took a strong pro-Feminist and Pro-LGBT stance. They did not lose any profits, and actually gained a lot, since most of their customers are young women, who are almost always pro Feminist and usually proLGBTQ. The more controversy it gained, the better brand recognition they got. Book retailer in my country took a rather gentle pro-Left stance and had their shop destroyed by Right Wing rioters. Since then the book retailer retaliated hard, and doubled down on being not just pro-LGBT and pro-Left but being openly anti-Right, and their profits soared. Turns out Leftists read more books than Righwingers.","human_ref_B":"> why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base Because they do market research and know that most of their base lies in one half, and despite what many \"Americans\" think they're not the only market by far and many issues that are 50\/50 in the US are pretty much 99\/1 elsewhere. Almost no individual in Europe likes capital punishment of firearm permissiveness and those are often clients as well\u2014there was even a US clothing manufacturer that put \"We're sorry our president is an idiot; we did not vote for this individual\" on the labels during the reign of George II because most of the world thought so and it probably gave them a laugh.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2639.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r0s6xc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Cmv: It's silly even stupid from a business standpoint for companies to take a political stance especially a strong one in today's political playground. With a near 50\/50 split in politics amongst Americans, taking a strong political stance is flat out foolish, why would you potentially eliminate half your customer base? Business and politics has no reason to be in association. Companies today taking strong progressive stances are being blackballed by many conservatives. Not so much the other way around but the point still stands either way. Produce your product and service and keep your views to yourself. When you openly put your views out there as a company you 9\/10 times are gonna lose more customers than gain.","c_root_id_A":"hlwdsvf","c_root_id_B":"hlwgajk","created_at_utc_A":1637761363,"created_at_utc_B":1637762603,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think that there are two reasons that businesses do this. First - They don't care. They owner has political views and results be damned, they are going to make them known. I do think that is stupid. Second - It actually helps some businesses. When a business comes under fire for taking a progressive or conservative stance, a lot of times the base will rally around that business, giving it more business than it normally would have had. Yes, you alienate some, but you are not going to have 100% anyways. FWIW, I am a partner in a small\/mid size business, and keep any universal political, religious, etc., statements out of it. Good work is too hard to get, so why run it off?","human_ref_B":"Sometimes it works, sometimes not, it depends on the product. Examples: A beer company in our country took an anti-LGBT stance. They did not lose profits, because the kind of people who buy their beer (cheap crap lager) are almost all rednecks who agree with this philosophy. In fact, their beer temporarily gained a cult following due to that, despite being below average compared to their competition. A pantihose producer in my country took a strong pro-Feminist and Pro-LGBT stance. They did not lose any profits, and actually gained a lot, since most of their customers are young women, who are almost always pro Feminist and usually proLGBTQ. The more controversy it gained, the better brand recognition they got. Book retailer in my country took a rather gentle pro-Left stance and had their shop destroyed by Right Wing rioters. Since then the book retailer retaliated hard, and doubled down on being not just pro-LGBT and pro-Left but being openly anti-Right, and their profits soared. Turns out Leftists read more books than Righwingers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1240.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rledc","c_root_id_B":"e7rkorz","created_at_utc_A":1539547098,"created_at_utc_B":1539546556,"score_A":47,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Come on over to \/r\/NeutralPolitics. It's definitely a great counter-example to your suggestions.","human_ref_B":"So? The majority of Reddit skews upper-middle class, college educated, white nerdy types. Which also happen to be much more likely to vote left. Short of changing the demographic I don\u2019t see how it would be possible, or preferable, to artificially change this. Unfortunately, people rarely obey the \u201cdo not treat the downvote button as a dislike\u201d button no matter what the issue is. That being said there are a few \u201cright\u201d talking points that are popular on Reddit: #metoo isn\u2019t really effective, men are under attack, reverse racism, identity politics, feminism is bad. Etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":542.0,"score_ratio":2.1363636364} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rke9k","c_root_id_B":"e7rledc","created_at_utc_A":1539546323,"created_at_utc_B":1539547098,"score_A":17,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"Hmmmm, I need to know what you mean by \"echo chamber,\" and why you think that affects \"quality\" of a sub. Could you get a little more into that?","human_ref_B":"Come on over to \/r\/NeutralPolitics. It's definitely a great counter-example to your suggestions.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":775.0,"score_ratio":2.7647058824} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rlqfr","c_root_id_B":"e7rkorz","created_at_utc_A":1539547364,"created_at_utc_B":1539546556,"score_A":32,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Here's an example of what I think discussions are like on \/r\/worldnews. Admittedly I just now went and cherry picked a discussion which has multiple viewpoints with not that much downvoting, but it was very easy to find. In that same thread there were others that fit what you describe, but I normally just scroll past those. Therefore I would submit that you could also just scroll past the boring circlejerks and find the interesting discussions, and then you might think differently of these subs. The circlejerking in the subs you're talking about does not begin to compare with \/r\/The_Donald, where the amount of circlejerking is off the charts. Most of the conservative subs allow no alternative viewpoints whatsoever, they just ban people they don't like. And then they brigade the other political subs with their drek, but rarely get banned. I'm not saying reddit political subs tend to lean left, everything on reddit leans left outside of subs where left leaners are banned. I'm just saying they're not nearly the circlejerks some people claim they are.","human_ref_B":"So? The majority of Reddit skews upper-middle class, college educated, white nerdy types. Which also happen to be much more likely to vote left. Short of changing the demographic I don\u2019t see how it would be possible, or preferable, to artificially change this. Unfortunately, people rarely obey the \u201cdo not treat the downvote button as a dislike\u201d button no matter what the issue is. That being said there are a few \u201cright\u201d talking points that are popular on Reddit: #metoo isn\u2019t really effective, men are under attack, reverse racism, identity politics, feminism is bad. Etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":808.0,"score_ratio":1.4545454545} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rlqfr","c_root_id_B":"e7rke9k","created_at_utc_A":1539547364,"created_at_utc_B":1539546323,"score_A":32,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Here's an example of what I think discussions are like on \/r\/worldnews. Admittedly I just now went and cherry picked a discussion which has multiple viewpoints with not that much downvoting, but it was very easy to find. In that same thread there were others that fit what you describe, but I normally just scroll past those. Therefore I would submit that you could also just scroll past the boring circlejerks and find the interesting discussions, and then you might think differently of these subs. The circlejerking in the subs you're talking about does not begin to compare with \/r\/The_Donald, where the amount of circlejerking is off the charts. Most of the conservative subs allow no alternative viewpoints whatsoever, they just ban people they don't like. And then they brigade the other political subs with their drek, but rarely get banned. I'm not saying reddit political subs tend to lean left, everything on reddit leans left outside of subs where left leaners are banned. I'm just saying they're not nearly the circlejerks some people claim they are.","human_ref_B":"Hmmmm, I need to know what you mean by \"echo chamber,\" and why you think that affects \"quality\" of a sub. Could you get a little more into that?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1041.0,"score_ratio":1.8823529412} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rkorz","c_root_id_B":"e7rke9k","created_at_utc_A":1539546556,"created_at_utc_B":1539546323,"score_A":22,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"So? The majority of Reddit skews upper-middle class, college educated, white nerdy types. Which also happen to be much more likely to vote left. Short of changing the demographic I don\u2019t see how it would be possible, or preferable, to artificially change this. Unfortunately, people rarely obey the \u201cdo not treat the downvote button as a dislike\u201d button no matter what the issue is. That being said there are a few \u201cright\u201d talking points that are popular on Reddit: #metoo isn\u2019t really effective, men are under attack, reverse racism, identity politics, feminism is bad. Etc.","human_ref_B":"Hmmmm, I need to know what you mean by \"echo chamber,\" and why you think that affects \"quality\" of a sub. Could you get a little more into that?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":233.0,"score_ratio":1.2941176471} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7sj27o","c_root_id_B":"e7rp1qk","created_at_utc_A":1539580497,"created_at_utc_B":1539550107,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Well, first of all, an opposing argument isn't inherently valuable simply for opposing the mainstream. But more importantly, what do you consider and \"incredibly biased, leftist overview on things\"? >Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. Can you provide some examples? Because personally, I think reddit is being taken over by the alt-right.","human_ref_B":"I also have a different point to make, that's not going to tackle the whole issue but that might add a new perspective: You have to take into account that many redditors are not american\/from anglo-saxon countries, and thus don't have the same political spectrum as americans\/many anglo-saxons do. The right in the US is basically the political equivalent of the alt-right in many european countries (source: am french). To you it might seem like most people on those subs are leftists but in their country they could be considered right-leaning or centrist. In a country where the right is very conservative, then sure, when you step out of that bubble most people from different places are going to sound more progressive, even if, to their own standards or their country's strandard, they might not be. It's easy to assume every comment is from an american, but MANY MANY people here are not and it's actually impossible to know the nationality of a redditor unless you ask.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30390.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rp1qk","c_root_id_B":"e7svqpm","created_at_utc_A":1539550107,"created_at_utc_B":1539604525,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I also have a different point to make, that's not going to tackle the whole issue but that might add a new perspective: You have to take into account that many redditors are not american\/from anglo-saxon countries, and thus don't have the same political spectrum as americans\/many anglo-saxons do. The right in the US is basically the political equivalent of the alt-right in many european countries (source: am french). To you it might seem like most people on those subs are leftists but in their country they could be considered right-leaning or centrist. In a country where the right is very conservative, then sure, when you step out of that bubble most people from different places are going to sound more progressive, even if, to their own standards or their country's strandard, they might not be. It's easy to assume every comment is from an american, but MANY MANY people here are not and it's actually impossible to know the nationality of a redditor unless you ask.","human_ref_B":"The issue is that most of the right wing political subs don't expressly name themselves as political subs. The only two that do are r\/conservative and r\/thedonald, but there are many other right wing subs. For instance there are almost a dozen white nationalist subs on Reddit. Those are both extremely right wing and extremely political. As far as echo chambers go, I think that cuts both ways. For instance, r\/conservative and the Donald will ban you pretty quickly for dissent, just like many other leftist subs like srd.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":54418.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rp1qk","c_root_id_B":"e7rp508","created_at_utc_A":1539550107,"created_at_utc_B":1539550186,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I also have a different point to make, that's not going to tackle the whole issue but that might add a new perspective: You have to take into account that many redditors are not american\/from anglo-saxon countries, and thus don't have the same political spectrum as americans\/many anglo-saxons do. The right in the US is basically the political equivalent of the alt-right in many european countries (source: am french). To you it might seem like most people on those subs are leftists but in their country they could be considered right-leaning or centrist. In a country where the right is very conservative, then sure, when you step out of that bubble most people from different places are going to sound more progressive, even if, to their own standards or their country's strandard, they might not be. It's easy to assume every comment is from an american, but MANY MANY people here are not and it's actually impossible to know the nationality of a redditor unless you ask.","human_ref_B":"The_Donald subscribers believe Hillary Clinton had a pedophilia ring downstairs of a pizza shop. They believe Soros pays people to protest all types of random shit. They believe QAnon The_Donald is borderline on insanity. The defaults subs are not remotely close to that","labels":0,"seconds_difference":79.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7sj27o","c_root_id_B":"e7rwubf","created_at_utc_A":1539580497,"created_at_utc_B":1539557259,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Well, first of all, an opposing argument isn't inherently valuable simply for opposing the mainstream. But more importantly, what do you consider and \"incredibly biased, leftist overview on things\"? >Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. Can you provide some examples? Because personally, I think reddit is being taken over by the alt-right.","human_ref_B":"As a small tangent, you really shouldn't be surprised that the futurology sub skews left. By definition the left seeks change and the right resists change and in the futurology sub you have a collection of people hoping for a change in the world and who have an interest in technology or science. This combined with reddits general demographic makes it what it is.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23238.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rpcnb","c_root_id_B":"e7sj27o","created_at_utc_A":1539550375,"created_at_utc_B":1539580497,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Reddit is a pretty pro capitalism place. Far from \"leftist\".","human_ref_B":"Well, first of all, an opposing argument isn't inherently valuable simply for opposing the mainstream. But more importantly, what do you consider and \"incredibly biased, leftist overview on things\"? >Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. Can you provide some examples? Because personally, I think reddit is being taken over by the alt-right.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30122.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7sj27o","c_root_id_B":"e7rwiqh","created_at_utc_A":1539580497,"created_at_utc_B":1539556951,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Well, first of all, an opposing argument isn't inherently valuable simply for opposing the mainstream. But more importantly, what do you consider and \"incredibly biased, leftist overview on things\"? >Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. Can you provide some examples? Because personally, I think reddit is being taken over by the alt-right.","human_ref_B":"I think this is a problem with the internet and humanity in general. Personally as a fairly left liberal I would much rather talk to an intelligent conservative than a hackish liberal. I think people who think critically about issues and are willing to attempt to adopt and understand the viewpoints of the other side of the argument are the true minority in our politics, a lot of people just find the side that seems to line up with their values and then go to work moral signaling so that their in group recognizes them. I tend to see the opposite effect which is xenophobic\/racist\/sexist trolls everywhere. All I can say is do your best to elevate the conversation, challenge people's assumptions in tactful thought provoking ways and when you get tired of dealing with the less thoughtful people seek out a more carefully selected community or talk to people IRL.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23546.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rwubf","c_root_id_B":"e7svqpm","created_at_utc_A":1539557259,"created_at_utc_B":1539604525,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"As a small tangent, you really shouldn't be surprised that the futurology sub skews left. By definition the left seeks change and the right resists change and in the futurology sub you have a collection of people hoping for a change in the world and who have an interest in technology or science. This combined with reddits general demographic makes it what it is.","human_ref_B":"The issue is that most of the right wing political subs don't expressly name themselves as political subs. The only two that do are r\/conservative and r\/thedonald, but there are many other right wing subs. For instance there are almost a dozen white nationalist subs on Reddit. Those are both extremely right wing and extremely political. As far as echo chambers go, I think that cuts both ways. For instance, r\/conservative and the Donald will ban you pretty quickly for dissent, just like many other leftist subs like srd.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":47266.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7svqpm","c_root_id_B":"e7rpcnb","created_at_utc_A":1539604525,"created_at_utc_B":1539550375,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The issue is that most of the right wing political subs don't expressly name themselves as political subs. The only two that do are r\/conservative and r\/thedonald, but there are many other right wing subs. For instance there are almost a dozen white nationalist subs on Reddit. Those are both extremely right wing and extremely political. As far as echo chambers go, I think that cuts both ways. For instance, r\/conservative and the Donald will ban you pretty quickly for dissent, just like many other leftist subs like srd.","human_ref_B":"Reddit is a pretty pro capitalism place. Far from \"leftist\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":54150.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7svqpm","c_root_id_B":"e7suzhc","created_at_utc_A":1539604525,"created_at_utc_B":1539603399,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The issue is that most of the right wing political subs don't expressly name themselves as political subs. The only two that do are r\/conservative and r\/thedonald, but there are many other right wing subs. For instance there are almost a dozen white nationalist subs on Reddit. Those are both extremely right wing and extremely political. As far as echo chambers go, I think that cuts both ways. For instance, r\/conservative and the Donald will ban you pretty quickly for dissent, just like many other leftist subs like srd.","human_ref_B":"Just a heads up, you keep mentioning r\/TheDonald, but that\u2019s a parody sub of r\/The_Donald. The former focuses on Donald Glover; the latter, on Trump.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1126.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rwiqh","c_root_id_B":"e7svqpm","created_at_utc_A":1539556951,"created_at_utc_B":1539604525,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think this is a problem with the internet and humanity in general. Personally as a fairly left liberal I would much rather talk to an intelligent conservative than a hackish liberal. I think people who think critically about issues and are willing to attempt to adopt and understand the viewpoints of the other side of the argument are the true minority in our politics, a lot of people just find the side that seems to line up with their values and then go to work moral signaling so that their in group recognizes them. I tend to see the opposite effect which is xenophobic\/racist\/sexist trolls everywhere. All I can say is do your best to elevate the conversation, challenge people's assumptions in tactful thought provoking ways and when you get tired of dealing with the less thoughtful people seek out a more carefully selected community or talk to people IRL.","human_ref_B":"The issue is that most of the right wing political subs don't expressly name themselves as political subs. The only two that do are r\/conservative and r\/thedonald, but there are many other right wing subs. For instance there are almost a dozen white nationalist subs on Reddit. Those are both extremely right wing and extremely political. As far as echo chambers go, I think that cuts both ways. For instance, r\/conservative and the Donald will ban you pretty quickly for dissent, just like many other leftist subs like srd.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":47574.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rwubf","c_root_id_B":"e7rpcnb","created_at_utc_A":1539557259,"created_at_utc_B":1539550375,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"As a small tangent, you really shouldn't be surprised that the futurology sub skews left. By definition the left seeks change and the right resists change and in the futurology sub you have a collection of people hoping for a change in the world and who have an interest in technology or science. This combined with reddits general demographic makes it what it is.","human_ref_B":"Reddit is a pretty pro capitalism place. Far from \"leftist\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6884.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rwiqh","c_root_id_B":"e7rwubf","created_at_utc_A":1539556951,"created_at_utc_B":1539557259,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think this is a problem with the internet and humanity in general. Personally as a fairly left liberal I would much rather talk to an intelligent conservative than a hackish liberal. I think people who think critically about issues and are willing to attempt to adopt and understand the viewpoints of the other side of the argument are the true minority in our politics, a lot of people just find the side that seems to line up with their values and then go to work moral signaling so that their in group recognizes them. I tend to see the opposite effect which is xenophobic\/racist\/sexist trolls everywhere. All I can say is do your best to elevate the conversation, challenge people's assumptions in tactful thought provoking ways and when you get tired of dealing with the less thoughtful people seek out a more carefully selected community or talk to people IRL.","human_ref_B":"As a small tangent, you really shouldn't be surprised that the futurology sub skews left. By definition the left seeks change and the right resists change and in the futurology sub you have a collection of people hoping for a change in the world and who have an interest in technology or science. This combined with reddits general demographic makes it what it is.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":308.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rpcnb","c_root_id_B":"e7suzhc","created_at_utc_A":1539550375,"created_at_utc_B":1539603399,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Reddit is a pretty pro capitalism place. Far from \"leftist\".","human_ref_B":"Just a heads up, you keep mentioning r\/TheDonald, but that\u2019s a parody sub of r\/The_Donald. The former focuses on Donald Glover; the latter, on Trump.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":53024.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"9o5olt","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: Most of the Reddit political subs are leftist echo chambers. I\u2019d like to preface this by saying I do lean towards the left politically - I\u2019m admittedly more centre-left than outright left though, and I definitely agree with some of the points often brought up in the mainstream political subs. To be clear, I\u2019m talking about the major, default subs. Almost 1\/2 of every article posted to subs such as \/r\/WorldNews, \/r\/Politics, \/r\/Futurology, etc. happen to be prone to what I consider an incredibly biased, leftist overview on things. I\u2019ve seen comments where people advocated in favour of forming a mob to \u201ctake down\u201d bankers, or rich people, or some big corporation. The faux-revolutionary internet warrior nature of 90% of comments on such articles make it hard for me to even take them seriously. Furthermore, anybody who has a different opinion to the consensus seems to be downvoted to oblivion frequently - insightful and smart comments seem to not gain much attention, while some dumb aggressive comment gets upvoted to the top. There are conservative echo chambers on Reddit as well, such as \/r\/TheDonald (an absolutely ridiculous sub btw), but I\u2019d argue that most of the default subs aren\u2019t much better in terms of quality.","c_root_id_A":"e7rwiqh","c_root_id_B":"e7suzhc","created_at_utc_A":1539556951,"created_at_utc_B":1539603399,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I think this is a problem with the internet and humanity in general. Personally as a fairly left liberal I would much rather talk to an intelligent conservative than a hackish liberal. I think people who think critically about issues and are willing to attempt to adopt and understand the viewpoints of the other side of the argument are the true minority in our politics, a lot of people just find the side that seems to line up with their values and then go to work moral signaling so that their in group recognizes them. I tend to see the opposite effect which is xenophobic\/racist\/sexist trolls everywhere. All I can say is do your best to elevate the conversation, challenge people's assumptions in tactful thought provoking ways and when you get tired of dealing with the less thoughtful people seek out a more carefully selected community or talk to people IRL.","human_ref_B":"Just a heads up, you keep mentioning r\/TheDonald, but that\u2019s a parody sub of r\/The_Donald. The former focuses on Donald Glover; the latter, on Trump.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":46448.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"nehd6t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Having a question on most applications asking about race\/ethnicity is unnecessary and should be deleted, namely from Job and College applications. This is actually a CMV Request...I wasn't sure I could put that in the title but I'm truly looking forward to any responses. First off, I completely understand that the damage of racism has already been done and we have a long way to go before we're even better at it. Though we've come a long way, I'm sure even to a tiny extent centuries from now, racism will still exist. I also understand there are situations where knowing the race of the applicant is necessary (at least I think so, do correct me if I'm wrong). Such as in medicine when applying as a new patient, where the medical statistics behind your race could help identity certain health issues since, as far as I'm aware, certain races go through certain things to a more serious degree than others. Or if there was some group or organization looking to only have a certain racial group in their midst (though that should be made clear prior so only qualified individuals apply in the first place. Anyways! My view is that things such as Affirmative Action would not need to be in place, and that hearts on racism could further be opened up, if we just deleted the box in the first place. While it may be nice for a more than qualified black individual to receive entry into Harvard because they (the university) needed more diversity, and they are also qualified for more money in some ways just due to their race and such (when I think it should be based on their\/their parents income anyway), it stills pretty racist because then the education system is acknowledging a racist fault in their acceptance programs and it leaves people like white males in a tough spot. And the value on diversity is too heavy sometimes. Or the unfortunate circumstances where an overqualified individual for a position at a company will be denied for the average Joe because they are Indian or Mexican or whatever. Maybe diversity wouldn't be able to be planned out as perfectly, but then so many systems in place that say \"WE ARE RACIST AND WE KNOW IT SO HERE'S A GO PASS SO YOU DON'T SUE US LATER\" wouldn't have to exist and everyone would have an equal shot at that college\/job position. If everyone at that workplace turns out all Asian, it would be coincidental. If a supervisor was hired at a company, it'd be by chance they're black or Indian. If one white male is in a class of mostly Hispanics and foreigners, it just happened that way. Either way, the application should be blind when it comes to the race of their applicants, then there wouldn't be a need for a \"we do not discriminate\" notice and people in general would be more forced to recognize we are all human regardless of our skin color. I'd love to see a future where we have spaces to interact with our own kind but it's not because of a negative racial issue, just a healthy desire to be with your own kind because I understand we all have different customs and familiarity is comforting. Again, we've got a long way to go and I know a lot of oppressed races feel they still deserve an upper edge or reparations or whatever, but I feel this could be another place to start in times of overall equality. Edit: I've watched Hidden Figures recently, amazing movie btw, also I am a 22 Black female.","c_root_id_A":"gyg7t3b","c_root_id_B":"gyg6qqk","created_at_utc_A":1621262622,"created_at_utc_B":1621262157,"score_A":43,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Companies\/colleges don't collect demographic information for the sake of making admissions decisions\/job offers. The hiring manager at the company whose online job application concluded with questions about your race, gender, disability status, and veteran status will never actually see the answers to any of those questions. All of that demographic information is kept seperate from your actual application. In point of fact, that information is all used to ensure that the company isn't discriminating against anyone. At the end of the year, that information is aggregated and analyzed to ensure that the company is adhering with federal laws and whatnot (e.g., if 100% of your Asian applicants are being denied but 100% of your white applicants are being hired, there's probably some discrimination going on that needs to be worked out). And in my experience, demographic questions are normally optional, meaning that you don't actually have to answer them.","human_ref_B":"If I might ask, what prompted this post? I ask because your view states that you are against providing race information on job applications. However, the vast majority of employers do not ask your race on the application itself. Reason being, including that information could be seen as discriminatory. The reason that they put race on a separate form is to ensure that employers are not discriminating against people. The information on the EEOC form is not given to the employer. It is just stored so that if there is a discrimination accusation, we can look at the hiring practices and prove it. This way, employers can\u2019t just reject every applicant of a certain race after an in person interview and just hide it by not asking the question.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":465.0,"score_ratio":4.3} {"post_id":"nehd6t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Having a question on most applications asking about race\/ethnicity is unnecessary and should be deleted, namely from Job and College applications. This is actually a CMV Request...I wasn't sure I could put that in the title but I'm truly looking forward to any responses. First off, I completely understand that the damage of racism has already been done and we have a long way to go before we're even better at it. Though we've come a long way, I'm sure even to a tiny extent centuries from now, racism will still exist. I also understand there are situations where knowing the race of the applicant is necessary (at least I think so, do correct me if I'm wrong). Such as in medicine when applying as a new patient, where the medical statistics behind your race could help identity certain health issues since, as far as I'm aware, certain races go through certain things to a more serious degree than others. Or if there was some group or organization looking to only have a certain racial group in their midst (though that should be made clear prior so only qualified individuals apply in the first place. Anyways! My view is that things such as Affirmative Action would not need to be in place, and that hearts on racism could further be opened up, if we just deleted the box in the first place. While it may be nice for a more than qualified black individual to receive entry into Harvard because they (the university) needed more diversity, and they are also qualified for more money in some ways just due to their race and such (when I think it should be based on their\/their parents income anyway), it stills pretty racist because then the education system is acknowledging a racist fault in their acceptance programs and it leaves people like white males in a tough spot. And the value on diversity is too heavy sometimes. Or the unfortunate circumstances where an overqualified individual for a position at a company will be denied for the average Joe because they are Indian or Mexican or whatever. Maybe diversity wouldn't be able to be planned out as perfectly, but then so many systems in place that say \"WE ARE RACIST AND WE KNOW IT SO HERE'S A GO PASS SO YOU DON'T SUE US LATER\" wouldn't have to exist and everyone would have an equal shot at that college\/job position. If everyone at that workplace turns out all Asian, it would be coincidental. If a supervisor was hired at a company, it'd be by chance they're black or Indian. If one white male is in a class of mostly Hispanics and foreigners, it just happened that way. Either way, the application should be blind when it comes to the race of their applicants, then there wouldn't be a need for a \"we do not discriminate\" notice and people in general would be more forced to recognize we are all human regardless of our skin color. I'd love to see a future where we have spaces to interact with our own kind but it's not because of a negative racial issue, just a healthy desire to be with your own kind because I understand we all have different customs and familiarity is comforting. Again, we've got a long way to go and I know a lot of oppressed races feel they still deserve an upper edge or reparations or whatever, but I feel this could be another place to start in times of overall equality. Edit: I've watched Hidden Figures recently, amazing movie btw, also I am a 22 Black female.","c_root_id_A":"gyg4mnj","c_root_id_B":"gyg7t3b","created_at_utc_A":1621261231,"created_at_utc_B":1621262622,"score_A":5,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"I think it's usually best to see why they're forced to ask. There are a multitude of factors but the most common are Federal Statistics, Administrative Reporting, and even Civil Rights Compliance Reporting. To remove the question from applications, you'd have to do away with the multitude of things forcing them from tracking it. Additionally, lets say a company\\college is suspected of being racially biased in it's hiring\\admittance. How would one prove it without them previously tracking it?","human_ref_B":"Companies\/colleges don't collect demographic information for the sake of making admissions decisions\/job offers. The hiring manager at the company whose online job application concluded with questions about your race, gender, disability status, and veteran status will never actually see the answers to any of those questions. All of that demographic information is kept seperate from your actual application. In point of fact, that information is all used to ensure that the company isn't discriminating against anyone. At the end of the year, that information is aggregated and analyzed to ensure that the company is adhering with federal laws and whatnot (e.g., if 100% of your Asian applicants are being denied but 100% of your white applicants are being hired, there's probably some discrimination going on that needs to be worked out). And in my experience, demographic questions are normally optional, meaning that you don't actually have to answer them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1391.0,"score_ratio":8.6} {"post_id":"nehd6t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Having a question on most applications asking about race\/ethnicity is unnecessary and should be deleted, namely from Job and College applications. This is actually a CMV Request...I wasn't sure I could put that in the title but I'm truly looking forward to any responses. First off, I completely understand that the damage of racism has already been done and we have a long way to go before we're even better at it. Though we've come a long way, I'm sure even to a tiny extent centuries from now, racism will still exist. I also understand there are situations where knowing the race of the applicant is necessary (at least I think so, do correct me if I'm wrong). Such as in medicine when applying as a new patient, where the medical statistics behind your race could help identity certain health issues since, as far as I'm aware, certain races go through certain things to a more serious degree than others. Or if there was some group or organization looking to only have a certain racial group in their midst (though that should be made clear prior so only qualified individuals apply in the first place. Anyways! My view is that things such as Affirmative Action would not need to be in place, and that hearts on racism could further be opened up, if we just deleted the box in the first place. While it may be nice for a more than qualified black individual to receive entry into Harvard because they (the university) needed more diversity, and they are also qualified for more money in some ways just due to their race and such (when I think it should be based on their\/their parents income anyway), it stills pretty racist because then the education system is acknowledging a racist fault in their acceptance programs and it leaves people like white males in a tough spot. And the value on diversity is too heavy sometimes. Or the unfortunate circumstances where an overqualified individual for a position at a company will be denied for the average Joe because they are Indian or Mexican or whatever. Maybe diversity wouldn't be able to be planned out as perfectly, but then so many systems in place that say \"WE ARE RACIST AND WE KNOW IT SO HERE'S A GO PASS SO YOU DON'T SUE US LATER\" wouldn't have to exist and everyone would have an equal shot at that college\/job position. If everyone at that workplace turns out all Asian, it would be coincidental. If a supervisor was hired at a company, it'd be by chance they're black or Indian. If one white male is in a class of mostly Hispanics and foreigners, it just happened that way. Either way, the application should be blind when it comes to the race of their applicants, then there wouldn't be a need for a \"we do not discriminate\" notice and people in general would be more forced to recognize we are all human regardless of our skin color. I'd love to see a future where we have spaces to interact with our own kind but it's not because of a negative racial issue, just a healthy desire to be with your own kind because I understand we all have different customs and familiarity is comforting. Again, we've got a long way to go and I know a lot of oppressed races feel they still deserve an upper edge or reparations or whatever, but I feel this could be another place to start in times of overall equality. Edit: I've watched Hidden Figures recently, amazing movie btw, also I am a 22 Black female.","c_root_id_A":"gyg7t3b","c_root_id_B":"gyg5l6m","created_at_utc_A":1621262622,"created_at_utc_B":1621261656,"score_A":43,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Companies\/colleges don't collect demographic information for the sake of making admissions decisions\/job offers. The hiring manager at the company whose online job application concluded with questions about your race, gender, disability status, and veteran status will never actually see the answers to any of those questions. All of that demographic information is kept seperate from your actual application. In point of fact, that information is all used to ensure that the company isn't discriminating against anyone. At the end of the year, that information is aggregated and analyzed to ensure that the company is adhering with federal laws and whatnot (e.g., if 100% of your Asian applicants are being denied but 100% of your white applicants are being hired, there's probably some discrimination going on that needs to be worked out). And in my experience, demographic questions are normally optional, meaning that you don't actually have to answer them.","human_ref_B":"People ask about race\/ethnicity on applications because it's critical information for informing whether a company is actually being racist\/sexist in its hiring practices and allows for better tracking of efforts to eliminate that racism. It is generally completely voluntary for candidates to provide it and at any company that's not actively, explicitly trying to be racist, nobody's going to make some sort of obvious comment based on an applicants stated race.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":966.0,"score_ratio":14.3333333333} {"post_id":"nehd6t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Having a question on most applications asking about race\/ethnicity is unnecessary and should be deleted, namely from Job and College applications. This is actually a CMV Request...I wasn't sure I could put that in the title but I'm truly looking forward to any responses. First off, I completely understand that the damage of racism has already been done and we have a long way to go before we're even better at it. Though we've come a long way, I'm sure even to a tiny extent centuries from now, racism will still exist. I also understand there are situations where knowing the race of the applicant is necessary (at least I think so, do correct me if I'm wrong). Such as in medicine when applying as a new patient, where the medical statistics behind your race could help identity certain health issues since, as far as I'm aware, certain races go through certain things to a more serious degree than others. Or if there was some group or organization looking to only have a certain racial group in their midst (though that should be made clear prior so only qualified individuals apply in the first place. Anyways! My view is that things such as Affirmative Action would not need to be in place, and that hearts on racism could further be opened up, if we just deleted the box in the first place. While it may be nice for a more than qualified black individual to receive entry into Harvard because they (the university) needed more diversity, and they are also qualified for more money in some ways just due to their race and such (when I think it should be based on their\/their parents income anyway), it stills pretty racist because then the education system is acknowledging a racist fault in their acceptance programs and it leaves people like white males in a tough spot. And the value on diversity is too heavy sometimes. Or the unfortunate circumstances where an overqualified individual for a position at a company will be denied for the average Joe because they are Indian or Mexican or whatever. Maybe diversity wouldn't be able to be planned out as perfectly, but then so many systems in place that say \"WE ARE RACIST AND WE KNOW IT SO HERE'S A GO PASS SO YOU DON'T SUE US LATER\" wouldn't have to exist and everyone would have an equal shot at that college\/job position. If everyone at that workplace turns out all Asian, it would be coincidental. If a supervisor was hired at a company, it'd be by chance they're black or Indian. If one white male is in a class of mostly Hispanics and foreigners, it just happened that way. Either way, the application should be blind when it comes to the race of their applicants, then there wouldn't be a need for a \"we do not discriminate\" notice and people in general would be more forced to recognize we are all human regardless of our skin color. I'd love to see a future where we have spaces to interact with our own kind but it's not because of a negative racial issue, just a healthy desire to be with your own kind because I understand we all have different customs and familiarity is comforting. Again, we've got a long way to go and I know a lot of oppressed races feel they still deserve an upper edge or reparations or whatever, but I feel this could be another place to start in times of overall equality. Edit: I've watched Hidden Figures recently, amazing movie btw, also I am a 22 Black female.","c_root_id_A":"gyg6dcs","c_root_id_B":"gyg7t3b","created_at_utc_A":1621261997,"created_at_utc_B":1621262622,"score_A":3,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"When it comes to the workplace mostly that is there as a CYA for companies to show they aren\u2019t hiring WASP\u2019s for every hire and every department. If any litigation comes their way in the form of their hiring practices they can show who they hire based on race\/gender\/etc.","human_ref_B":"Companies\/colleges don't collect demographic information for the sake of making admissions decisions\/job offers. The hiring manager at the company whose online job application concluded with questions about your race, gender, disability status, and veteran status will never actually see the answers to any of those questions. All of that demographic information is kept seperate from your actual application. In point of fact, that information is all used to ensure that the company isn't discriminating against anyone. At the end of the year, that information is aggregated and analyzed to ensure that the company is adhering with federal laws and whatnot (e.g., if 100% of your Asian applicants are being denied but 100% of your white applicants are being hired, there's probably some discrimination going on that needs to be worked out). And in my experience, demographic questions are normally optional, meaning that you don't actually have to answer them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":625.0,"score_ratio":14.3333333333} {"post_id":"nehd6t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Having a question on most applications asking about race\/ethnicity is unnecessary and should be deleted, namely from Job and College applications. This is actually a CMV Request...I wasn't sure I could put that in the title but I'm truly looking forward to any responses. First off, I completely understand that the damage of racism has already been done and we have a long way to go before we're even better at it. Though we've come a long way, I'm sure even to a tiny extent centuries from now, racism will still exist. I also understand there are situations where knowing the race of the applicant is necessary (at least I think so, do correct me if I'm wrong). Such as in medicine when applying as a new patient, where the medical statistics behind your race could help identity certain health issues since, as far as I'm aware, certain races go through certain things to a more serious degree than others. Or if there was some group or organization looking to only have a certain racial group in their midst (though that should be made clear prior so only qualified individuals apply in the first place. Anyways! My view is that things such as Affirmative Action would not need to be in place, and that hearts on racism could further be opened up, if we just deleted the box in the first place. While it may be nice for a more than qualified black individual to receive entry into Harvard because they (the university) needed more diversity, and they are also qualified for more money in some ways just due to their race and such (when I think it should be based on their\/their parents income anyway), it stills pretty racist because then the education system is acknowledging a racist fault in their acceptance programs and it leaves people like white males in a tough spot. And the value on diversity is too heavy sometimes. Or the unfortunate circumstances where an overqualified individual for a position at a company will be denied for the average Joe because they are Indian or Mexican or whatever. Maybe diversity wouldn't be able to be planned out as perfectly, but then so many systems in place that say \"WE ARE RACIST AND WE KNOW IT SO HERE'S A GO PASS SO YOU DON'T SUE US LATER\" wouldn't have to exist and everyone would have an equal shot at that college\/job position. If everyone at that workplace turns out all Asian, it would be coincidental. If a supervisor was hired at a company, it'd be by chance they're black or Indian. If one white male is in a class of mostly Hispanics and foreigners, it just happened that way. Either way, the application should be blind when it comes to the race of their applicants, then there wouldn't be a need for a \"we do not discriminate\" notice and people in general would be more forced to recognize we are all human regardless of our skin color. I'd love to see a future where we have spaces to interact with our own kind but it's not because of a negative racial issue, just a healthy desire to be with your own kind because I understand we all have different customs and familiarity is comforting. Again, we've got a long way to go and I know a lot of oppressed races feel they still deserve an upper edge or reparations or whatever, but I feel this could be another place to start in times of overall equality. Edit: I've watched Hidden Figures recently, amazing movie btw, also I am a 22 Black female.","c_root_id_A":"gyg6qqk","c_root_id_B":"gyg4mnj","created_at_utc_A":1621262157,"created_at_utc_B":1621261231,"score_A":10,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If I might ask, what prompted this post? I ask because your view states that you are against providing race information on job applications. However, the vast majority of employers do not ask your race on the application itself. Reason being, including that information could be seen as discriminatory. The reason that they put race on a separate form is to ensure that employers are not discriminating against people. The information on the EEOC form is not given to the employer. It is just stored so that if there is a discrimination accusation, we can look at the hiring practices and prove it. This way, employers can\u2019t just reject every applicant of a certain race after an in person interview and just hide it by not asking the question.","human_ref_B":"I think it's usually best to see why they're forced to ask. There are a multitude of factors but the most common are Federal Statistics, Administrative Reporting, and even Civil Rights Compliance Reporting. To remove the question from applications, you'd have to do away with the multitude of things forcing them from tracking it. Additionally, lets say a company\\college is suspected of being racially biased in it's hiring\\admittance. How would one prove it without them previously tracking it?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":926.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"nehd6t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Having a question on most applications asking about race\/ethnicity is unnecessary and should be deleted, namely from Job and College applications. This is actually a CMV Request...I wasn't sure I could put that in the title but I'm truly looking forward to any responses. First off, I completely understand that the damage of racism has already been done and we have a long way to go before we're even better at it. Though we've come a long way, I'm sure even to a tiny extent centuries from now, racism will still exist. I also understand there are situations where knowing the race of the applicant is necessary (at least I think so, do correct me if I'm wrong). Such as in medicine when applying as a new patient, where the medical statistics behind your race could help identity certain health issues since, as far as I'm aware, certain races go through certain things to a more serious degree than others. Or if there was some group or organization looking to only have a certain racial group in their midst (though that should be made clear prior so only qualified individuals apply in the first place. Anyways! My view is that things such as Affirmative Action would not need to be in place, and that hearts on racism could further be opened up, if we just deleted the box in the first place. While it may be nice for a more than qualified black individual to receive entry into Harvard because they (the university) needed more diversity, and they are also qualified for more money in some ways just due to their race and such (when I think it should be based on their\/their parents income anyway), it stills pretty racist because then the education system is acknowledging a racist fault in their acceptance programs and it leaves people like white males in a tough spot. And the value on diversity is too heavy sometimes. Or the unfortunate circumstances where an overqualified individual for a position at a company will be denied for the average Joe because they are Indian or Mexican or whatever. Maybe diversity wouldn't be able to be planned out as perfectly, but then so many systems in place that say \"WE ARE RACIST AND WE KNOW IT SO HERE'S A GO PASS SO YOU DON'T SUE US LATER\" wouldn't have to exist and everyone would have an equal shot at that college\/job position. If everyone at that workplace turns out all Asian, it would be coincidental. If a supervisor was hired at a company, it'd be by chance they're black or Indian. If one white male is in a class of mostly Hispanics and foreigners, it just happened that way. Either way, the application should be blind when it comes to the race of their applicants, then there wouldn't be a need for a \"we do not discriminate\" notice and people in general would be more forced to recognize we are all human regardless of our skin color. I'd love to see a future where we have spaces to interact with our own kind but it's not because of a negative racial issue, just a healthy desire to be with your own kind because I understand we all have different customs and familiarity is comforting. Again, we've got a long way to go and I know a lot of oppressed races feel they still deserve an upper edge or reparations or whatever, but I feel this could be another place to start in times of overall equality. Edit: I've watched Hidden Figures recently, amazing movie btw, also I am a 22 Black female.","c_root_id_A":"gyg6qqk","c_root_id_B":"gyg5l6m","created_at_utc_A":1621262157,"created_at_utc_B":1621261656,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If I might ask, what prompted this post? I ask because your view states that you are against providing race information on job applications. However, the vast majority of employers do not ask your race on the application itself. Reason being, including that information could be seen as discriminatory. The reason that they put race on a separate form is to ensure that employers are not discriminating against people. The information on the EEOC form is not given to the employer. It is just stored so that if there is a discrimination accusation, we can look at the hiring practices and prove it. This way, employers can\u2019t just reject every applicant of a certain race after an in person interview and just hide it by not asking the question.","human_ref_B":"People ask about race\/ethnicity on applications because it's critical information for informing whether a company is actually being racist\/sexist in its hiring practices and allows for better tracking of efforts to eliminate that racism. It is generally completely voluntary for candidates to provide it and at any company that's not actively, explicitly trying to be racist, nobody's going to make some sort of obvious comment based on an applicants stated race.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":501.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"nehd6t","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Having a question on most applications asking about race\/ethnicity is unnecessary and should be deleted, namely from Job and College applications. This is actually a CMV Request...I wasn't sure I could put that in the title but I'm truly looking forward to any responses. First off, I completely understand that the damage of racism has already been done and we have a long way to go before we're even better at it. Though we've come a long way, I'm sure even to a tiny extent centuries from now, racism will still exist. I also understand there are situations where knowing the race of the applicant is necessary (at least I think so, do correct me if I'm wrong). Such as in medicine when applying as a new patient, where the medical statistics behind your race could help identity certain health issues since, as far as I'm aware, certain races go through certain things to a more serious degree than others. Or if there was some group or organization looking to only have a certain racial group in their midst (though that should be made clear prior so only qualified individuals apply in the first place. Anyways! My view is that things such as Affirmative Action would not need to be in place, and that hearts on racism could further be opened up, if we just deleted the box in the first place. While it may be nice for a more than qualified black individual to receive entry into Harvard because they (the university) needed more diversity, and they are also qualified for more money in some ways just due to their race and such (when I think it should be based on their\/their parents income anyway), it stills pretty racist because then the education system is acknowledging a racist fault in their acceptance programs and it leaves people like white males in a tough spot. And the value on diversity is too heavy sometimes. Or the unfortunate circumstances where an overqualified individual for a position at a company will be denied for the average Joe because they are Indian or Mexican or whatever. Maybe diversity wouldn't be able to be planned out as perfectly, but then so many systems in place that say \"WE ARE RACIST AND WE KNOW IT SO HERE'S A GO PASS SO YOU DON'T SUE US LATER\" wouldn't have to exist and everyone would have an equal shot at that college\/job position. If everyone at that workplace turns out all Asian, it would be coincidental. If a supervisor was hired at a company, it'd be by chance they're black or Indian. If one white male is in a class of mostly Hispanics and foreigners, it just happened that way. Either way, the application should be blind when it comes to the race of their applicants, then there wouldn't be a need for a \"we do not discriminate\" notice and people in general would be more forced to recognize we are all human regardless of our skin color. I'd love to see a future where we have spaces to interact with our own kind but it's not because of a negative racial issue, just a healthy desire to be with your own kind because I understand we all have different customs and familiarity is comforting. Again, we've got a long way to go and I know a lot of oppressed races feel they still deserve an upper edge or reparations or whatever, but I feel this could be another place to start in times of overall equality. Edit: I've watched Hidden Figures recently, amazing movie btw, also I am a 22 Black female.","c_root_id_A":"gyg6qqk","c_root_id_B":"gyg6dcs","created_at_utc_A":1621262157,"created_at_utc_B":1621261997,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If I might ask, what prompted this post? I ask because your view states that you are against providing race information on job applications. However, the vast majority of employers do not ask your race on the application itself. Reason being, including that information could be seen as discriminatory. The reason that they put race on a separate form is to ensure that employers are not discriminating against people. The information on the EEOC form is not given to the employer. It is just stored so that if there is a discrimination accusation, we can look at the hiring practices and prove it. This way, employers can\u2019t just reject every applicant of a certain race after an in person interview and just hide it by not asking the question.","human_ref_B":"When it comes to the workplace mostly that is there as a CYA for companies to show they aren\u2019t hiring WASP\u2019s for every hire and every department. If any litigation comes their way in the form of their hiring practices they can show who they hire based on race\/gender\/etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":160.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"3qim0g","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: It is hypocritical to fight against war on drugs while advocating for war on guns A lot of people (mostly liberals) doesn't realize that they are hypocrites when it comes to gun issues. Let's see, people say \"*Banning drugs won't solve any problem. People would still get illegal drugs and still use drugs anyway*.\" But hey, \"*let's ban guns*\", because i decided to ignore everything I just said about banning drugs and I believe there is absolutely no way people will get illegal guns and gun violence will magically disappear. \"*Criminalizing drug use pushes it underground, where it is unsafe and unsupervised*\". But hey, \"*let's ban guns*\" because the same logic obviously wouldn't apply to gun dealers \"*The 'war on drugs' is making it harder for those who need drugs for medicinal purposes to get them*\". However, we should make war on guns to make it harder for those who need guns for legitimate reasons like hunting. \"*We have mass incarceration problems. Too many people are imprisoned because of drugs*\". But let us ban guns, because why not? But wait, how do you suppose we would enforce a nation-wide gun ban again? Oh yeah, with incarceration. \"*The 'war on drugs' is insanely expensive*\". But I'm sure a war on gun would be real cheap. \"*Even minor drug-related offenses can destroy one's opportunities forever*\". But let's make new laws to ruin people lives for gun-related offenses In conclusion, drugs supporters and stoner liberals, let's take every articles and research about 'war on drugs' that you've read and change the word \"drugs\" with \"guns\". If you still want to ban guns, then you're having a severe case of hypocrisy.","c_root_id_A":"cwfivq8","c_root_id_B":"cwfigdp","created_at_utc_A":1446005199,"created_at_utc_B":1446004406,"score_A":86,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Most people on the left think guns and drugs should be treated the same way: Legal and highly regulated. Gonna be honest here and say that this is just another case of a pro gun guy coming to CMV with the same incorrect characterization of the views pro gun control people have. If I think that people that drive should get insurance, a license and registration, that does *NOT* mean I want to ban cars. Why do people think this is true for guns?","human_ref_B":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":793.0,"score_ratio":43.0} {"post_id":"3qim0g","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: It is hypocritical to fight against war on drugs while advocating for war on guns A lot of people (mostly liberals) doesn't realize that they are hypocrites when it comes to gun issues. Let's see, people say \"*Banning drugs won't solve any problem. People would still get illegal drugs and still use drugs anyway*.\" But hey, \"*let's ban guns*\", because i decided to ignore everything I just said about banning drugs and I believe there is absolutely no way people will get illegal guns and gun violence will magically disappear. \"*Criminalizing drug use pushes it underground, where it is unsafe and unsupervised*\". But hey, \"*let's ban guns*\" because the same logic obviously wouldn't apply to gun dealers \"*The 'war on drugs' is making it harder for those who need drugs for medicinal purposes to get them*\". However, we should make war on guns to make it harder for those who need guns for legitimate reasons like hunting. \"*We have mass incarceration problems. Too many people are imprisoned because of drugs*\". But let us ban guns, because why not? But wait, how do you suppose we would enforce a nation-wide gun ban again? Oh yeah, with incarceration. \"*The 'war on drugs' is insanely expensive*\". But I'm sure a war on gun would be real cheap. \"*Even minor drug-related offenses can destroy one's opportunities forever*\". But let's make new laws to ruin people lives for gun-related offenses In conclusion, drugs supporters and stoner liberals, let's take every articles and research about 'war on drugs' that you've read and change the word \"drugs\" with \"guns\". If you still want to ban guns, then you're having a severe case of hypocrisy.","c_root_id_A":"cwfigdp","c_root_id_B":"cwfmn0q","created_at_utc_A":1446004406,"created_at_utc_B":1446014358,"score_A":2,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Here's a few major differences: **Intent:** Drugs are generally used for pleasure. Guns are generally used for intimidation and killing (whether offensively or defensively). So the reason that someone could argue in favor of decriminalizing drugs and restricting access to guns without being a hypocrite in this case is that they perceive that most people who use drugs do so for pleasure and most people who *use* guns, use them for harm (justified or not). This is a generalization, but it helps to illustrate the categorical difference in intent between drugs and guns. Drugs do cause harm and people do use guns for pleasure, but the intent is usually the other way around. **Access:** Drugs are easy to make and grow. Really, really easy. Which is why it's so hard to control their manufacture and distribution. It's like a game of whack-a-mole with 100,000,000 moles. You bust a small time grower in his basement, someone else starts growing in his trailer to meet the neighborhood demand. It is generally cheap and easy for people with little to no education to make\/grow their own drugs and distribute them. And it's far more financially attractive than working at walmart. So the argument against the war on drugs in this case is that it's basically unwinable.... There will always be too many moles to whack, because of never ending demand and cheap supply. Guns on the other hand are made by a handful of major manufacturers. It would be a legislative piece of cake to end the majority of gun sales in the US. In a hypothetical scenario where guns were prohibited entirely, people who still had them would be *very* careful about using them or being seen with them. There would be a dramatic drop-off in casual gun owners (homeowners, and people who have handguns \"for protection\"). Of course there would be hundreds of thousands of legacy guns out there, but if you couldn't get legal ammunition could you easily use them? That would eliminate most casual gun use. So you'd be down to people that hid their guns, smuggled them in, or made their own using 3-D printers and whatnot. The people that keep and hide their guns are going to be largely a mix of die hard 2nd amendment folks, and low level criminals. The people that smuggle and make their own guns are most likely organized crime. All of those categories are mostly about defense of self\/family and defense of business. You don't get offensive in those situations without drawing attention to yourself. So in theory there should be a drop in casual\/accidental gun violence. Less kids finding their parents guns, less crazies buying a gun at a store and opening up on a school. If you don't already have a gun hidden away, you've got to have connections to get one... so suburban joe schmoe doesn't get to go on a spree so easily. So while drug prohibition hasn't really prevented access to drugs because of ease of low level manufacturing and distribution to casual consumers, federal gun prohibition would effectively decimate the number of casually owned guns in America by restricting access to determined criminals, and consequently diminish casual\/accidental\/mass-shooting gun violence. **Consumption:** Drugs are consumed quickly. They're used up, daily, momentarily, they need replacement, continuously. Guns last a long time, you might only need to buy one gun in your entire life. So the incentive to be an illegal drug maker is much higher than to be an illegal gun maker. You can effectively make a living making\/distributing drugs in a single trailer park. How big of an area do you think you'd need to make a living as an illegal gun manufacturer? Which comes down to the whack-a-mole scenario again. With drugs we've got a million uneducated people, easily replaced, making drugs to serve a never ending *daily* appetite. With guns you might have hundreds of comparatively skilled illegal gun makers\/smugglers catering to a niche market which doesn't need replenishing nearly as often. Less manufacturers\/distributors are easier to target\/incarcerate. So a war on guns is far easier\/cheaper to fight than a war on drugs. **Buget** The amount of money spent trying to prevent 1,000,000 home scale manufacturers and 100,000,000 consumers from experiencing their drug of choice, and then incarcerating them when caught, is absurd. Comparatively, telling a handful of gun manufacturers that they can't sell their guns in the US anymore wouldn't cost much. The cost of the war on guns would mostly be spent attempting to prevent smuggling (which they do already), and incarcerating people foolish enough to be caught using their loud illegal weapons. The number of people who actually *use* guns is a paltry amount compared to the amount of people who use drugs, so the cost of prohibiting guns would be a tiny fraction of the cost of fighting the war on drugs. **Effectiveness** If the end goal is to reduce violence and human suffering, then shifting money away from drug prohibition and towards harm reduction and education would help reduce the harm caused by drug use. The general perception at this point is that prohibition is responsible for a considerable amount of violence (guns and otherwise). So if we stopped spending hundreds of millions of dollars on drug prohibition, there would likely be less harm and violence, and more money (and taxes) to spend on education and harm reduction. Comparatively, if we were to engage in a 'war on guns' and prohibit them entirely in the US, it seems extremely unlikely that this would result in more gun violence or gun related suffering in the long term. And it would cost a tiny fraction of the cost of the war on drugs. Sure it would cost loads to enforce in the early stages, but that would fall off once casual domestic supplies were dealt with, and the focus would be turned to organized crime. Ultimately it would require far less law enforcement resources to enforce a gun ban vs a drug ban because there are far more people using drugs on a daily basis than there are people using guns. **Conclusion** It is not hypocritical to advocate gun prohibition whilst refuting drug prohibition because to enact both of those measures would likely result in a decrease of violence and benefit the greater good at less expense than the current paradigm.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9952.0,"score_ratio":9.5} {"post_id":"vxhw33","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: life isn't fair is an excuse to falsely justify an artificially unfair environment usually of the sayers making I hear this most often from parent to child but its always in response to something that is indeed unfair the justification being that that unfair situation somehow accurately mirrors real life with the insinuation that the child is not real in real life. this statement does more harm than good morally and practically it conditions children to tolerate oppressive and yes unfair conditions later in life while simultaneously ignoring the fact that one should strive to make life fair for ones self and those around them. really it seems to be an excuse for the parent to avoid having to listen to their children or in any way admitting fault that is often caused by conditions they impose. tldr: it's to prevent the dissolution of a power trip","c_root_id_A":"ifw9aen","c_root_id_B":"ifwj9ri","created_at_utc_A":1657654085,"created_at_utc_B":1657657973,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"What about your example as compared to The Princess Bride when the Grandfather tells him that anyone trying to tell you life is fair is trying to sell you something? It's not inaccurate that life is not fair. Just because you put in good effort doesn't mean you will be rewarded, and horrible acts may indeed absolutely never be punished and might be rewarded. I was absolutely taught as a child that life is not fair but that I should be as fair and merciful as possible. That the world you exist in is the one that you participate in. It's up to the individual person to be fair and to fight for fairness. There was never a time where, at least for me, life isn't fair was said as a cop-out. It was always a call to add fairness and understand that people who tell you otherwise may indeed be trying to sell you something.","human_ref_B":"I've normally heard this rattled off in the context of: Child: \"but thats not fair\" Parents: \"life isnt fair kiddo\" And if I was a parent, I would probably say something closer to \"i wasnt trying to be fair\" and that's because there is a fundamental power imbalance with being a parent. If I was being fair to my kid and treating them with the respect that any human deserves, then that would bar me from being able to physically remove them from a restaurant when they are screaming. It would bar me from controlling what TV they watch, what they eat, when they eat, who they see and when. This is like pretty basic stuff that all parents have some level of control over, and if they were treating their kids fairly, from one human to another, they would not have control over any of that. Would you tell an adult \"you MUST eat your peas and carrots tonight or no TV!\"? I sure wouldn't. Tldr: The dynamic between a parent and their child is fundamentally unfair, and if my child pointed that out to me, I would say yah you're right homie, but it has to be that way so you don't turn out to be a lil bitch","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3888.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"vxhw33","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: life isn't fair is an excuse to falsely justify an artificially unfair environment usually of the sayers making I hear this most often from parent to child but its always in response to something that is indeed unfair the justification being that that unfair situation somehow accurately mirrors real life with the insinuation that the child is not real in real life. this statement does more harm than good morally and practically it conditions children to tolerate oppressive and yes unfair conditions later in life while simultaneously ignoring the fact that one should strive to make life fair for ones self and those around them. really it seems to be an excuse for the parent to avoid having to listen to their children or in any way admitting fault that is often caused by conditions they impose. tldr: it's to prevent the dissolution of a power trip","c_root_id_A":"ifwj9ri","c_root_id_B":"ifw0up1","created_at_utc_A":1657657973,"created_at_utc_B":1657650756,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I've normally heard this rattled off in the context of: Child: \"but thats not fair\" Parents: \"life isnt fair kiddo\" And if I was a parent, I would probably say something closer to \"i wasnt trying to be fair\" and that's because there is a fundamental power imbalance with being a parent. If I was being fair to my kid and treating them with the respect that any human deserves, then that would bar me from being able to physically remove them from a restaurant when they are screaming. It would bar me from controlling what TV they watch, what they eat, when they eat, who they see and when. This is like pretty basic stuff that all parents have some level of control over, and if they were treating their kids fairly, from one human to another, they would not have control over any of that. Would you tell an adult \"you MUST eat your peas and carrots tonight or no TV!\"? I sure wouldn't. Tldr: The dynamic between a parent and their child is fundamentally unfair, and if my child pointed that out to me, I would say yah you're right homie, but it has to be that way so you don't turn out to be a lil bitch","human_ref_B":"If indeed life is truly fair, how do you explain celebrities making ungodly amounts of money for pretending in front of a camera? If life is fair, how do you explain that some people are born with talent, good looks, work ethic, intelligence, that others are not and in general, will probably be more successful because of those traits? Success in life can also be attributable to environmental factors like the parent(s) you were born from, the family you're surrounded with (or not), the area you grew up in, etc... All of that might mean life isn't fair. The reason your parents told you life isn't fair is because they wanted you to get over that fact early in life and realize you need to fight for what you get out of life. Nobody is going to give you anything. It's a much better message than telling your children life SHOULD be fair, and have them wait for that day to come while they waste their life waiting. For life to be fair, you have to control others. You can't control others, you can only control yourself. The message the adults are teaching their children includes this wisdom. Teaching otherwise is a utopian and childish view of the world that will only guarantee that child's failure in life.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7217.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"vxhw33","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: life isn't fair is an excuse to falsely justify an artificially unfair environment usually of the sayers making I hear this most often from parent to child but its always in response to something that is indeed unfair the justification being that that unfair situation somehow accurately mirrors real life with the insinuation that the child is not real in real life. this statement does more harm than good morally and practically it conditions children to tolerate oppressive and yes unfair conditions later in life while simultaneously ignoring the fact that one should strive to make life fair for ones self and those around them. really it seems to be an excuse for the parent to avoid having to listen to their children or in any way admitting fault that is often caused by conditions they impose. tldr: it's to prevent the dissolution of a power trip","c_root_id_A":"ifw37m4","c_root_id_B":"ifwj9ri","created_at_utc_A":1657651684,"created_at_utc_B":1657657973,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Life isnt fair is the mechanism in which we account for circumstances beyond control. That you are internalizing this mechanism to be specifically vindictive toward you speak of a certain lack of personal accountability","human_ref_B":"I've normally heard this rattled off in the context of: Child: \"but thats not fair\" Parents: \"life isnt fair kiddo\" And if I was a parent, I would probably say something closer to \"i wasnt trying to be fair\" and that's because there is a fundamental power imbalance with being a parent. If I was being fair to my kid and treating them with the respect that any human deserves, then that would bar me from being able to physically remove them from a restaurant when they are screaming. It would bar me from controlling what TV they watch, what they eat, when they eat, who they see and when. This is like pretty basic stuff that all parents have some level of control over, and if they were treating their kids fairly, from one human to another, they would not have control over any of that. Would you tell an adult \"you MUST eat your peas and carrots tonight or no TV!\"? I sure wouldn't. Tldr: The dynamic between a parent and their child is fundamentally unfair, and if my child pointed that out to me, I would say yah you're right homie, but it has to be that way so you don't turn out to be a lil bitch","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6289.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"vxhw33","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: life isn't fair is an excuse to falsely justify an artificially unfair environment usually of the sayers making I hear this most often from parent to child but its always in response to something that is indeed unfair the justification being that that unfair situation somehow accurately mirrors real life with the insinuation that the child is not real in real life. this statement does more harm than good morally and practically it conditions children to tolerate oppressive and yes unfair conditions later in life while simultaneously ignoring the fact that one should strive to make life fair for ones self and those around them. really it seems to be an excuse for the parent to avoid having to listen to their children or in any way admitting fault that is often caused by conditions they impose. tldr: it's to prevent the dissolution of a power trip","c_root_id_A":"ifwa7aw","c_root_id_B":"ifwj9ri","created_at_utc_A":1657654445,"created_at_utc_B":1657657973,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"As a bipolar person I can confirm that life is in fact, not fair. It isn\u2019t a slogan, it is the ability to accept that you will not have all the abilities or blessing other people have. There are many people who will be just plain better then you at things you really care about. I agree that people often use it to describe socially constructed problems, but all common sayings are misused and so not really a strong argument in my opinion.","human_ref_B":"I've normally heard this rattled off in the context of: Child: \"but thats not fair\" Parents: \"life isnt fair kiddo\" And if I was a parent, I would probably say something closer to \"i wasnt trying to be fair\" and that's because there is a fundamental power imbalance with being a parent. If I was being fair to my kid and treating them with the respect that any human deserves, then that would bar me from being able to physically remove them from a restaurant when they are screaming. It would bar me from controlling what TV they watch, what they eat, when they eat, who they see and when. This is like pretty basic stuff that all parents have some level of control over, and if they were treating their kids fairly, from one human to another, they would not have control over any of that. Would you tell an adult \"you MUST eat your peas and carrots tonight or no TV!\"? I sure wouldn't. Tldr: The dynamic between a parent and their child is fundamentally unfair, and if my child pointed that out to me, I would say yah you're right homie, but it has to be that way so you don't turn out to be a lil bitch","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3528.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"vxhw33","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: life isn't fair is an excuse to falsely justify an artificially unfair environment usually of the sayers making I hear this most often from parent to child but its always in response to something that is indeed unfair the justification being that that unfair situation somehow accurately mirrors real life with the insinuation that the child is not real in real life. this statement does more harm than good morally and practically it conditions children to tolerate oppressive and yes unfair conditions later in life while simultaneously ignoring the fact that one should strive to make life fair for ones self and those around them. really it seems to be an excuse for the parent to avoid having to listen to their children or in any way admitting fault that is often caused by conditions they impose. tldr: it's to prevent the dissolution of a power trip","c_root_id_A":"ifw9aen","c_root_id_B":"ifw0up1","created_at_utc_A":1657654085,"created_at_utc_B":1657650756,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What about your example as compared to The Princess Bride when the Grandfather tells him that anyone trying to tell you life is fair is trying to sell you something? It's not inaccurate that life is not fair. Just because you put in good effort doesn't mean you will be rewarded, and horrible acts may indeed absolutely never be punished and might be rewarded. I was absolutely taught as a child that life is not fair but that I should be as fair and merciful as possible. That the world you exist in is the one that you participate in. It's up to the individual person to be fair and to fight for fairness. There was never a time where, at least for me, life isn't fair was said as a cop-out. It was always a call to add fairness and understand that people who tell you otherwise may indeed be trying to sell you something.","human_ref_B":"If indeed life is truly fair, how do you explain celebrities making ungodly amounts of money for pretending in front of a camera? If life is fair, how do you explain that some people are born with talent, good looks, work ethic, intelligence, that others are not and in general, will probably be more successful because of those traits? Success in life can also be attributable to environmental factors like the parent(s) you were born from, the family you're surrounded with (or not), the area you grew up in, etc... All of that might mean life isn't fair. The reason your parents told you life isn't fair is because they wanted you to get over that fact early in life and realize you need to fight for what you get out of life. Nobody is going to give you anything. It's a much better message than telling your children life SHOULD be fair, and have them wait for that day to come while they waste their life waiting. For life to be fair, you have to control others. You can't control others, you can only control yourself. The message the adults are teaching their children includes this wisdom. Teaching otherwise is a utopian and childish view of the world that will only guarantee that child's failure in life.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3329.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"vxhw33","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: life isn't fair is an excuse to falsely justify an artificially unfair environment usually of the sayers making I hear this most often from parent to child but its always in response to something that is indeed unfair the justification being that that unfair situation somehow accurately mirrors real life with the insinuation that the child is not real in real life. this statement does more harm than good morally and practically it conditions children to tolerate oppressive and yes unfair conditions later in life while simultaneously ignoring the fact that one should strive to make life fair for ones self and those around them. really it seems to be an excuse for the parent to avoid having to listen to their children or in any way admitting fault that is often caused by conditions they impose. tldr: it's to prevent the dissolution of a power trip","c_root_id_A":"ifw37m4","c_root_id_B":"ifw9aen","created_at_utc_A":1657651684,"created_at_utc_B":1657654085,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Life isnt fair is the mechanism in which we account for circumstances beyond control. That you are internalizing this mechanism to be specifically vindictive toward you speak of a certain lack of personal accountability","human_ref_B":"What about your example as compared to The Princess Bride when the Grandfather tells him that anyone trying to tell you life is fair is trying to sell you something? It's not inaccurate that life is not fair. Just because you put in good effort doesn't mean you will be rewarded, and horrible acts may indeed absolutely never be punished and might be rewarded. I was absolutely taught as a child that life is not fair but that I should be as fair and merciful as possible. That the world you exist in is the one that you participate in. It's up to the individual person to be fair and to fight for fairness. There was never a time where, at least for me, life isn't fair was said as a cop-out. It was always a call to add fairness and understand that people who tell you otherwise may indeed be trying to sell you something.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2401.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2pkes","c_root_id_B":"gq2qesx","created_at_utc_A":1615099120,"created_at_utc_B":1615099796,"score_A":22,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"How many of the marvel movies have you seen? I will say this: 1)I do not like the marvel franchise 2) I am definitely a \u201cfilm person\u201d and I tend to dislike commercial films Having said that, I actually think that marvel movies deserve credit for, within the context of over commercial cash grabs, actually having a great deal of creative effort put in to them. Often, they DO try to break the mold of what you would expect from them, even if only slightly. Transformers - now THATS an absolute garbage cash grab. To me, marvel movies have actually always been the gold standard of overly cgi filled trash. I agree with you that they\u2019re no necessarily good, but they are far and away the best examples of their genre.","human_ref_B":"The only way I'd try to change your mind is to point out that Hollywood has never been any different and this is just survivorship bias. \"Beach\" films, drive-in horror, Blaxploitation, etc, etc, the list of derivative, indistinguishable dross just goes on forever. Seriously, just look at the wiki page for AIP. Marvel films aren't \"the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film,\" they're just normal Hollywood. Hell, by the standards of the genres I listed earlier they're really pretty good. It's just that you've chosen to ignore the fact that there are **8** Saw movies, **12** Friday the 13th movies, and so on, and so on. Edit: spelling","labels":0,"seconds_difference":676.0,"score_ratio":1.3181818182} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2m5c6","c_root_id_B":"gq2qesx","created_at_utc_A":1615096555,"created_at_utc_B":1615099796,"score_A":5,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"> sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy Wait, what do you mean by this?","human_ref_B":"The only way I'd try to change your mind is to point out that Hollywood has never been any different and this is just survivorship bias. \"Beach\" films, drive-in horror, Blaxploitation, etc, etc, the list of derivative, indistinguishable dross just goes on forever. Seriously, just look at the wiki page for AIP. Marvel films aren't \"the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film,\" they're just normal Hollywood. Hell, by the standards of the genres I listed earlier they're really pretty good. It's just that you've chosen to ignore the fact that there are **8** Saw movies, **12** Friday the 13th movies, and so on, and so on. Edit: spelling","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3241.0,"score_ratio":5.8} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2m77f","c_root_id_B":"gq2qesx","created_at_utc_A":1615096595,"created_at_utc_B":1615099796,"score_A":5,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"How are you measuring commercialized other than budget? Game of Thrones is the most expensive tv show ever mad and Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides the most expensive movie.","human_ref_B":"The only way I'd try to change your mind is to point out that Hollywood has never been any different and this is just survivorship bias. \"Beach\" films, drive-in horror, Blaxploitation, etc, etc, the list of derivative, indistinguishable dross just goes on forever. Seriously, just look at the wiki page for AIP. Marvel films aren't \"the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film,\" they're just normal Hollywood. Hell, by the standards of the genres I listed earlier they're really pretty good. It's just that you've chosen to ignore the fact that there are **8** Saw movies, **12** Friday the 13th movies, and so on, and so on. Edit: spelling","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3201.0,"score_ratio":5.8} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2qesx","c_root_id_B":"gq2n2qg","created_at_utc_A":1615099796,"created_at_utc_B":1615097257,"score_A":29,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The only way I'd try to change your mind is to point out that Hollywood has never been any different and this is just survivorship bias. \"Beach\" films, drive-in horror, Blaxploitation, etc, etc, the list of derivative, indistinguishable dross just goes on forever. Seriously, just look at the wiki page for AIP. Marvel films aren't \"the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film,\" they're just normal Hollywood. Hell, by the standards of the genres I listed earlier they're really pretty good. It's just that you've chosen to ignore the fact that there are **8** Saw movies, **12** Friday the 13th movies, and so on, and so on. Edit: spelling","human_ref_B":"You're not obligated to have seen them all in order to have an opinion, but out of curiosity, which Marvel movies have you seen?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2539.0,"score_ratio":7.25} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2tvcy","c_root_id_B":"gq2pkes","created_at_utc_A":1615102827,"created_at_utc_B":1615099120,"score_A":23,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"What Marvel has been able to do is remarkable. There has never been a studio or franchise in the history of cinema that has gotten things so right so many times over. You have no idea how impossible it should have been for them to guess right this many times in a row. Making any of these films is a much harder task that you're giving them credit for, first of all. Any of these concepts could have gone colossally wrong, hit the wrong tone, misjudged fan reaction, not found a way to edit extremely complex plots and many characters down into feature length, etc. Let's go trough the movies and realize what they did: **Iron Man** - Mostly a conventional superhero movie, but with the twist of Tony Stark's personality (people forget what a risk it was to put Robery Downey Jr. at the helm of this), the adherence to some level of believability and reality (the way he builds the suit, etc.), and the semi-improv interactions between Tony and Pepper giving it some heart and naturalness. Solid work for its time. **Thor** - In retrospect, it's not the best, but this could have gone SO wrong. You want to introduce a God pantheon into this fairly grounded world? And have people take it seriously? Good luck with that. But they did it. **Captain America 1** - Captain America should not work in this era. He's a relic. He's silly in the extreme. Getting people to back this goody-two-shoes in 2010 was an impossible task. But they did it. **Avengers** - None of these characters belong in the same movie. And you can't corral this many main characters into one movie. Sure, there was tremendous hype for this project that would have made a lot of people see it no matter what, but thinking to reach out of Joss Whedon to write and direct, they delivered so far beyond expectations that they emerged as a new giant in Hollywood. **Iron Man 3** - Iron Man 2 was lacking. Do we really need another one? How do we make this good and fresh? They thought to hire Shane Black, who proceeded to deliver one of the best and most rewatchable scripts in all the Marvel movies. He found a new approach to the story and character, and it again hit better than it had any right to. **Captain America: The Winder Soldier** - Now for their next trick, they're going to turn the geeky patriot into something to hang a compelling political thriller off of. This was so successful, hitting even higher notes than they had previously, that it was seen as a movie even people not into Marvel could see and enjoy. The story is incredibly clever and well-structured, winding through moments in a hybrid-conventional path that winds up working entirely. **Guardians of the Galaxy** - This *should* have been their first failure. Third-rate characters, cosmic silliness, a talking raccoon with a machine gun? Come on. Also, let's hire this slightly weird and unproven director to helm the thing, because we somehow know he'll deliver. Yet deliver he did: Comedy, heart, turning minor characters into huge hits, making an absurd space comedy into some people's favorite Marvel movie to date? What the hell? **Ant-Man** - There a reason this character was left for later. He's a dude who...turns a small as an ant. Yeah. Great. But thanks to Paul Rudd and more right notes, we got a nice little comedy out of it, and a needed tone shift from the bombastic Age of Ultron before it. **Captain America: Civil War** - Again, I can't emphasize enough how amazing Marvel's cultural timing is. What about all the civilians superheroes probably kill in all their fights? Just when we needed to start acknowledging that, they did. They also dared to fracture their giant cash cow heros into people trying to kill each other. You don't expect them to do that, but they did (Well...you might expect it *now*, but that partially because Marvel gave it to us in this movie years ago). **Doctor Strange** - Now we have to introduce literal *magic*. I really didn't know how they were going to make that work, let alone make people sit through *another* origin story. But...yep, they did. Again, they added just enough freshness with the magic effects and structure to make it work. **Spider-Man: Homecoming** - We've seen Spider-Man already. We're tired of him. Sony gave us 3 with Tobey McGuire, that hit all the expected notes and villains, then rebooted him, and now we're doing him *again*? Bad idea. Can only possibly work if you somehow give people a Spider-Man that's clearly superior and truer to the source material than the past two. And how can you guarantee that? It's not like Sony didn't try hard, spend a fortune, and have some success. But...they did it. Again. **Thor: Ragnarok** - This and Black Panther were afterthoughts on the upcoming list. Yeah, we have to get through those two, then we get what every fan was actually waiting for: Infinity War. This movie...why are we even making it? It's clear Thor isn't that interesting as a character, and there's nothing more to do with him. So...let's hire a weird Kiwi director and do an 80's vibe? And comedy? Really? You're *sure* that's not going to fail miserably, as it should 19 times out of 20? Nope, they somehow turned this into one of the best and most entertaining films yet. No one, not even die-hard fans, had this the expectation that the third Thor movie would end up being this good. **Black Panther** - The other 'also ran' before Infinity War. Now, I'll agree that the hype around this movie got so insane so as to distort the quality out of proportion. It's not Oscar-worthy. But it's also important to understand why people had their minds blown: This movie offered them a vision they had never seen before. A giant budget action movie immersed in celebrating African culture. I freely admit I had nothing approaching the imagination for how rich they were going to make this movie, or that they would take Black Panther this seriously, so as to make him a giant part of the Marvel world. **Infinity War** - This was what everyone was waiting for. The hype was impossible to live up to. The number of characters was impossible to manage. No way they can make the villain live up to what he needed to be. And I admit, this one had flaws in editing they just couldn't work through to make it a smooth movie all the way through. Maybe it was an impossible task. But they delivered on the villain and then some, the big moments, and again did something new: End a $300 million movie, connected to a larger franchise, with 5 minutes of stunned silence on behalf of the audience. It's one of those things, as a fan, that you hope they have the guts to do, but don't entirely expect them to really do it. But do it they did. **Ant-Man and The Wasp** - Needed to be a palette cleanser, and it was. Also new was the decision not to even have a major villain for the first time. **Endgame** - Smart enough to realize they needed to balance Infinity War with something a bit different, they gave us a movie that was mostly about character for most of it's length, instead of action set pieces. To end their giant story arc with one of the best movies? Well, you hope for it, but even talented producers and directors can't guarantee it. But, AGAIN, they did it. Nothing has ever been this consistent. Not Pixar, not James Bond, not anything in all of cinematic history. It should not have been possible. Great directors have bombed *one* superhero movie - just look at what happened when Ang Lee, Oscar-winning director, and the producers attached, tried to do Hulk years ago: They got the tone completely wrong, and completely misjudged why people might want to see a Hulk movie. These are easy mistakes to make. The balance of fan service and seriousness and proper tone, getting character development into the running time, or even just dealing with the bureaucracy and moneyed interests with things like this. None of this is anything approaching simple. But Marvel get it right time after time. They changed cinema forever, as well as the place of comic superhero lore in our society. It's not overrated, it's astonishing.","human_ref_B":"How many of the marvel movies have you seen? I will say this: 1)I do not like the marvel franchise 2) I am definitely a \u201cfilm person\u201d and I tend to dislike commercial films Having said that, I actually think that marvel movies deserve credit for, within the context of over commercial cash grabs, actually having a great deal of creative effort put in to them. Often, they DO try to break the mold of what you would expect from them, even if only slightly. Transformers - now THATS an absolute garbage cash grab. To me, marvel movies have actually always been the gold standard of overly cgi filled trash. I agree with you that they\u2019re no necessarily good, but they are far and away the best examples of their genre.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3707.0,"score_ratio":1.0454545455} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2pkes","c_root_id_B":"gq2m5c6","created_at_utc_A":1615099120,"created_at_utc_B":1615096555,"score_A":22,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"How many of the marvel movies have you seen? I will say this: 1)I do not like the marvel franchise 2) I am definitely a \u201cfilm person\u201d and I tend to dislike commercial films Having said that, I actually think that marvel movies deserve credit for, within the context of over commercial cash grabs, actually having a great deal of creative effort put in to them. Often, they DO try to break the mold of what you would expect from them, even if only slightly. Transformers - now THATS an absolute garbage cash grab. To me, marvel movies have actually always been the gold standard of overly cgi filled trash. I agree with you that they\u2019re no necessarily good, but they are far and away the best examples of their genre.","human_ref_B":"> sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy Wait, what do you mean by this?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2565.0,"score_ratio":4.4} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2m77f","c_root_id_B":"gq2pkes","created_at_utc_A":1615096595,"created_at_utc_B":1615099120,"score_A":5,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"How are you measuring commercialized other than budget? Game of Thrones is the most expensive tv show ever mad and Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides the most expensive movie.","human_ref_B":"How many of the marvel movies have you seen? I will say this: 1)I do not like the marvel franchise 2) I am definitely a \u201cfilm person\u201d and I tend to dislike commercial films Having said that, I actually think that marvel movies deserve credit for, within the context of over commercial cash grabs, actually having a great deal of creative effort put in to them. Often, they DO try to break the mold of what you would expect from them, even if only slightly. Transformers - now THATS an absolute garbage cash grab. To me, marvel movies have actually always been the gold standard of overly cgi filled trash. I agree with you that they\u2019re no necessarily good, but they are far and away the best examples of their genre.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2525.0,"score_ratio":4.4} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2pkes","c_root_id_B":"gq2n2qg","created_at_utc_A":1615099120,"created_at_utc_B":1615097257,"score_A":22,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"How many of the marvel movies have you seen? I will say this: 1)I do not like the marvel franchise 2) I am definitely a \u201cfilm person\u201d and I tend to dislike commercial films Having said that, I actually think that marvel movies deserve credit for, within the context of over commercial cash grabs, actually having a great deal of creative effort put in to them. Often, they DO try to break the mold of what you would expect from them, even if only slightly. Transformers - now THATS an absolute garbage cash grab. To me, marvel movies have actually always been the gold standard of overly cgi filled trash. I agree with you that they\u2019re no necessarily good, but they are far and away the best examples of their genre.","human_ref_B":"You're not obligated to have seen them all in order to have an opinion, but out of curiosity, which Marvel movies have you seen?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1863.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2tvcy","c_root_id_B":"gq2m5c6","created_at_utc_A":1615102827,"created_at_utc_B":1615096555,"score_A":23,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What Marvel has been able to do is remarkable. There has never been a studio or franchise in the history of cinema that has gotten things so right so many times over. You have no idea how impossible it should have been for them to guess right this many times in a row. Making any of these films is a much harder task that you're giving them credit for, first of all. Any of these concepts could have gone colossally wrong, hit the wrong tone, misjudged fan reaction, not found a way to edit extremely complex plots and many characters down into feature length, etc. Let's go trough the movies and realize what they did: **Iron Man** - Mostly a conventional superhero movie, but with the twist of Tony Stark's personality (people forget what a risk it was to put Robery Downey Jr. at the helm of this), the adherence to some level of believability and reality (the way he builds the suit, etc.), and the semi-improv interactions between Tony and Pepper giving it some heart and naturalness. Solid work for its time. **Thor** - In retrospect, it's not the best, but this could have gone SO wrong. You want to introduce a God pantheon into this fairly grounded world? And have people take it seriously? Good luck with that. But they did it. **Captain America 1** - Captain America should not work in this era. He's a relic. He's silly in the extreme. Getting people to back this goody-two-shoes in 2010 was an impossible task. But they did it. **Avengers** - None of these characters belong in the same movie. And you can't corral this many main characters into one movie. Sure, there was tremendous hype for this project that would have made a lot of people see it no matter what, but thinking to reach out of Joss Whedon to write and direct, they delivered so far beyond expectations that they emerged as a new giant in Hollywood. **Iron Man 3** - Iron Man 2 was lacking. Do we really need another one? How do we make this good and fresh? They thought to hire Shane Black, who proceeded to deliver one of the best and most rewatchable scripts in all the Marvel movies. He found a new approach to the story and character, and it again hit better than it had any right to. **Captain America: The Winder Soldier** - Now for their next trick, they're going to turn the geeky patriot into something to hang a compelling political thriller off of. This was so successful, hitting even higher notes than they had previously, that it was seen as a movie even people not into Marvel could see and enjoy. The story is incredibly clever and well-structured, winding through moments in a hybrid-conventional path that winds up working entirely. **Guardians of the Galaxy** - This *should* have been their first failure. Third-rate characters, cosmic silliness, a talking raccoon with a machine gun? Come on. Also, let's hire this slightly weird and unproven director to helm the thing, because we somehow know he'll deliver. Yet deliver he did: Comedy, heart, turning minor characters into huge hits, making an absurd space comedy into some people's favorite Marvel movie to date? What the hell? **Ant-Man** - There a reason this character was left for later. He's a dude who...turns a small as an ant. Yeah. Great. But thanks to Paul Rudd and more right notes, we got a nice little comedy out of it, and a needed tone shift from the bombastic Age of Ultron before it. **Captain America: Civil War** - Again, I can't emphasize enough how amazing Marvel's cultural timing is. What about all the civilians superheroes probably kill in all their fights? Just when we needed to start acknowledging that, they did. They also dared to fracture their giant cash cow heros into people trying to kill each other. You don't expect them to do that, but they did (Well...you might expect it *now*, but that partially because Marvel gave it to us in this movie years ago). **Doctor Strange** - Now we have to introduce literal *magic*. I really didn't know how they were going to make that work, let alone make people sit through *another* origin story. But...yep, they did. Again, they added just enough freshness with the magic effects and structure to make it work. **Spider-Man: Homecoming** - We've seen Spider-Man already. We're tired of him. Sony gave us 3 with Tobey McGuire, that hit all the expected notes and villains, then rebooted him, and now we're doing him *again*? Bad idea. Can only possibly work if you somehow give people a Spider-Man that's clearly superior and truer to the source material than the past two. And how can you guarantee that? It's not like Sony didn't try hard, spend a fortune, and have some success. But...they did it. Again. **Thor: Ragnarok** - This and Black Panther were afterthoughts on the upcoming list. Yeah, we have to get through those two, then we get what every fan was actually waiting for: Infinity War. This movie...why are we even making it? It's clear Thor isn't that interesting as a character, and there's nothing more to do with him. So...let's hire a weird Kiwi director and do an 80's vibe? And comedy? Really? You're *sure* that's not going to fail miserably, as it should 19 times out of 20? Nope, they somehow turned this into one of the best and most entertaining films yet. No one, not even die-hard fans, had this the expectation that the third Thor movie would end up being this good. **Black Panther** - The other 'also ran' before Infinity War. Now, I'll agree that the hype around this movie got so insane so as to distort the quality out of proportion. It's not Oscar-worthy. But it's also important to understand why people had their minds blown: This movie offered them a vision they had never seen before. A giant budget action movie immersed in celebrating African culture. I freely admit I had nothing approaching the imagination for how rich they were going to make this movie, or that they would take Black Panther this seriously, so as to make him a giant part of the Marvel world. **Infinity War** - This was what everyone was waiting for. The hype was impossible to live up to. The number of characters was impossible to manage. No way they can make the villain live up to what he needed to be. And I admit, this one had flaws in editing they just couldn't work through to make it a smooth movie all the way through. Maybe it was an impossible task. But they delivered on the villain and then some, the big moments, and again did something new: End a $300 million movie, connected to a larger franchise, with 5 minutes of stunned silence on behalf of the audience. It's one of those things, as a fan, that you hope they have the guts to do, but don't entirely expect them to really do it. But do it they did. **Ant-Man and The Wasp** - Needed to be a palette cleanser, and it was. Also new was the decision not to even have a major villain for the first time. **Endgame** - Smart enough to realize they needed to balance Infinity War with something a bit different, they gave us a movie that was mostly about character for most of it's length, instead of action set pieces. To end their giant story arc with one of the best movies? Well, you hope for it, but even talented producers and directors can't guarantee it. But, AGAIN, they did it. Nothing has ever been this consistent. Not Pixar, not James Bond, not anything in all of cinematic history. It should not have been possible. Great directors have bombed *one* superhero movie - just look at what happened when Ang Lee, Oscar-winning director, and the producers attached, tried to do Hulk years ago: They got the tone completely wrong, and completely misjudged why people might want to see a Hulk movie. These are easy mistakes to make. The balance of fan service and seriousness and proper tone, getting character development into the running time, or even just dealing with the bureaucracy and moneyed interests with things like this. None of this is anything approaching simple. But Marvel get it right time after time. They changed cinema forever, as well as the place of comic superhero lore in our society. It's not overrated, it's astonishing.","human_ref_B":"> sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy Wait, what do you mean by this?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6272.0,"score_ratio":4.6} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2m77f","c_root_id_B":"gq2tvcy","created_at_utc_A":1615096595,"created_at_utc_B":1615102827,"score_A":5,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"How are you measuring commercialized other than budget? Game of Thrones is the most expensive tv show ever mad and Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides the most expensive movie.","human_ref_B":"What Marvel has been able to do is remarkable. There has never been a studio or franchise in the history of cinema that has gotten things so right so many times over. You have no idea how impossible it should have been for them to guess right this many times in a row. Making any of these films is a much harder task that you're giving them credit for, first of all. Any of these concepts could have gone colossally wrong, hit the wrong tone, misjudged fan reaction, not found a way to edit extremely complex plots and many characters down into feature length, etc. Let's go trough the movies and realize what they did: **Iron Man** - Mostly a conventional superhero movie, but with the twist of Tony Stark's personality (people forget what a risk it was to put Robery Downey Jr. at the helm of this), the adherence to some level of believability and reality (the way he builds the suit, etc.), and the semi-improv interactions between Tony and Pepper giving it some heart and naturalness. Solid work for its time. **Thor** - In retrospect, it's not the best, but this could have gone SO wrong. You want to introduce a God pantheon into this fairly grounded world? And have people take it seriously? Good luck with that. But they did it. **Captain America 1** - Captain America should not work in this era. He's a relic. He's silly in the extreme. Getting people to back this goody-two-shoes in 2010 was an impossible task. But they did it. **Avengers** - None of these characters belong in the same movie. And you can't corral this many main characters into one movie. Sure, there was tremendous hype for this project that would have made a lot of people see it no matter what, but thinking to reach out of Joss Whedon to write and direct, they delivered so far beyond expectations that they emerged as a new giant in Hollywood. **Iron Man 3** - Iron Man 2 was lacking. Do we really need another one? How do we make this good and fresh? They thought to hire Shane Black, who proceeded to deliver one of the best and most rewatchable scripts in all the Marvel movies. He found a new approach to the story and character, and it again hit better than it had any right to. **Captain America: The Winder Soldier** - Now for their next trick, they're going to turn the geeky patriot into something to hang a compelling political thriller off of. This was so successful, hitting even higher notes than they had previously, that it was seen as a movie even people not into Marvel could see and enjoy. The story is incredibly clever and well-structured, winding through moments in a hybrid-conventional path that winds up working entirely. **Guardians of the Galaxy** - This *should* have been their first failure. Third-rate characters, cosmic silliness, a talking raccoon with a machine gun? Come on. Also, let's hire this slightly weird and unproven director to helm the thing, because we somehow know he'll deliver. Yet deliver he did: Comedy, heart, turning minor characters into huge hits, making an absurd space comedy into some people's favorite Marvel movie to date? What the hell? **Ant-Man** - There a reason this character was left for later. He's a dude who...turns a small as an ant. Yeah. Great. But thanks to Paul Rudd and more right notes, we got a nice little comedy out of it, and a needed tone shift from the bombastic Age of Ultron before it. **Captain America: Civil War** - Again, I can't emphasize enough how amazing Marvel's cultural timing is. What about all the civilians superheroes probably kill in all their fights? Just when we needed to start acknowledging that, they did. They also dared to fracture their giant cash cow heros into people trying to kill each other. You don't expect them to do that, but they did (Well...you might expect it *now*, but that partially because Marvel gave it to us in this movie years ago). **Doctor Strange** - Now we have to introduce literal *magic*. I really didn't know how they were going to make that work, let alone make people sit through *another* origin story. But...yep, they did. Again, they added just enough freshness with the magic effects and structure to make it work. **Spider-Man: Homecoming** - We've seen Spider-Man already. We're tired of him. Sony gave us 3 with Tobey McGuire, that hit all the expected notes and villains, then rebooted him, and now we're doing him *again*? Bad idea. Can only possibly work if you somehow give people a Spider-Man that's clearly superior and truer to the source material than the past two. And how can you guarantee that? It's not like Sony didn't try hard, spend a fortune, and have some success. But...they did it. Again. **Thor: Ragnarok** - This and Black Panther were afterthoughts on the upcoming list. Yeah, we have to get through those two, then we get what every fan was actually waiting for: Infinity War. This movie...why are we even making it? It's clear Thor isn't that interesting as a character, and there's nothing more to do with him. So...let's hire a weird Kiwi director and do an 80's vibe? And comedy? Really? You're *sure* that's not going to fail miserably, as it should 19 times out of 20? Nope, they somehow turned this into one of the best and most entertaining films yet. No one, not even die-hard fans, had this the expectation that the third Thor movie would end up being this good. **Black Panther** - The other 'also ran' before Infinity War. Now, I'll agree that the hype around this movie got so insane so as to distort the quality out of proportion. It's not Oscar-worthy. But it's also important to understand why people had their minds blown: This movie offered them a vision they had never seen before. A giant budget action movie immersed in celebrating African culture. I freely admit I had nothing approaching the imagination for how rich they were going to make this movie, or that they would take Black Panther this seriously, so as to make him a giant part of the Marvel world. **Infinity War** - This was what everyone was waiting for. The hype was impossible to live up to. The number of characters was impossible to manage. No way they can make the villain live up to what he needed to be. And I admit, this one had flaws in editing they just couldn't work through to make it a smooth movie all the way through. Maybe it was an impossible task. But they delivered on the villain and then some, the big moments, and again did something new: End a $300 million movie, connected to a larger franchise, with 5 minutes of stunned silence on behalf of the audience. It's one of those things, as a fan, that you hope they have the guts to do, but don't entirely expect them to really do it. But do it they did. **Ant-Man and The Wasp** - Needed to be a palette cleanser, and it was. Also new was the decision not to even have a major villain for the first time. **Endgame** - Smart enough to realize they needed to balance Infinity War with something a bit different, they gave us a movie that was mostly about character for most of it's length, instead of action set pieces. To end their giant story arc with one of the best movies? Well, you hope for it, but even talented producers and directors can't guarantee it. But, AGAIN, they did it. Nothing has ever been this consistent. Not Pixar, not James Bond, not anything in all of cinematic history. It should not have been possible. Great directors have bombed *one* superhero movie - just look at what happened when Ang Lee, Oscar-winning director, and the producers attached, tried to do Hulk years ago: They got the tone completely wrong, and completely misjudged why people might want to see a Hulk movie. These are easy mistakes to make. The balance of fan service and seriousness and proper tone, getting character development into the running time, or even just dealing with the bureaucracy and moneyed interests with things like this. None of this is anything approaching simple. But Marvel get it right time after time. They changed cinema forever, as well as the place of comic superhero lore in our society. It's not overrated, it's astonishing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6232.0,"score_ratio":4.6} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2tvcy","c_root_id_B":"gq2qj2v","created_at_utc_A":1615102827,"created_at_utc_B":1615099894,"score_A":23,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"What Marvel has been able to do is remarkable. There has never been a studio or franchise in the history of cinema that has gotten things so right so many times over. You have no idea how impossible it should have been for them to guess right this many times in a row. Making any of these films is a much harder task that you're giving them credit for, first of all. Any of these concepts could have gone colossally wrong, hit the wrong tone, misjudged fan reaction, not found a way to edit extremely complex plots and many characters down into feature length, etc. Let's go trough the movies and realize what they did: **Iron Man** - Mostly a conventional superhero movie, but with the twist of Tony Stark's personality (people forget what a risk it was to put Robery Downey Jr. at the helm of this), the adherence to some level of believability and reality (the way he builds the suit, etc.), and the semi-improv interactions between Tony and Pepper giving it some heart and naturalness. Solid work for its time. **Thor** - In retrospect, it's not the best, but this could have gone SO wrong. You want to introduce a God pantheon into this fairly grounded world? And have people take it seriously? Good luck with that. But they did it. **Captain America 1** - Captain America should not work in this era. He's a relic. He's silly in the extreme. Getting people to back this goody-two-shoes in 2010 was an impossible task. But they did it. **Avengers** - None of these characters belong in the same movie. And you can't corral this many main characters into one movie. Sure, there was tremendous hype for this project that would have made a lot of people see it no matter what, but thinking to reach out of Joss Whedon to write and direct, they delivered so far beyond expectations that they emerged as a new giant in Hollywood. **Iron Man 3** - Iron Man 2 was lacking. Do we really need another one? How do we make this good and fresh? They thought to hire Shane Black, who proceeded to deliver one of the best and most rewatchable scripts in all the Marvel movies. He found a new approach to the story and character, and it again hit better than it had any right to. **Captain America: The Winder Soldier** - Now for their next trick, they're going to turn the geeky patriot into something to hang a compelling political thriller off of. This was so successful, hitting even higher notes than they had previously, that it was seen as a movie even people not into Marvel could see and enjoy. The story is incredibly clever and well-structured, winding through moments in a hybrid-conventional path that winds up working entirely. **Guardians of the Galaxy** - This *should* have been their first failure. Third-rate characters, cosmic silliness, a talking raccoon with a machine gun? Come on. Also, let's hire this slightly weird and unproven director to helm the thing, because we somehow know he'll deliver. Yet deliver he did: Comedy, heart, turning minor characters into huge hits, making an absurd space comedy into some people's favorite Marvel movie to date? What the hell? **Ant-Man** - There a reason this character was left for later. He's a dude who...turns a small as an ant. Yeah. Great. But thanks to Paul Rudd and more right notes, we got a nice little comedy out of it, and a needed tone shift from the bombastic Age of Ultron before it. **Captain America: Civil War** - Again, I can't emphasize enough how amazing Marvel's cultural timing is. What about all the civilians superheroes probably kill in all their fights? Just when we needed to start acknowledging that, they did. They also dared to fracture their giant cash cow heros into people trying to kill each other. You don't expect them to do that, but they did (Well...you might expect it *now*, but that partially because Marvel gave it to us in this movie years ago). **Doctor Strange** - Now we have to introduce literal *magic*. I really didn't know how they were going to make that work, let alone make people sit through *another* origin story. But...yep, they did. Again, they added just enough freshness with the magic effects and structure to make it work. **Spider-Man: Homecoming** - We've seen Spider-Man already. We're tired of him. Sony gave us 3 with Tobey McGuire, that hit all the expected notes and villains, then rebooted him, and now we're doing him *again*? Bad idea. Can only possibly work if you somehow give people a Spider-Man that's clearly superior and truer to the source material than the past two. And how can you guarantee that? It's not like Sony didn't try hard, spend a fortune, and have some success. But...they did it. Again. **Thor: Ragnarok** - This and Black Panther were afterthoughts on the upcoming list. Yeah, we have to get through those two, then we get what every fan was actually waiting for: Infinity War. This movie...why are we even making it? It's clear Thor isn't that interesting as a character, and there's nothing more to do with him. So...let's hire a weird Kiwi director and do an 80's vibe? And comedy? Really? You're *sure* that's not going to fail miserably, as it should 19 times out of 20? Nope, they somehow turned this into one of the best and most entertaining films yet. No one, not even die-hard fans, had this the expectation that the third Thor movie would end up being this good. **Black Panther** - The other 'also ran' before Infinity War. Now, I'll agree that the hype around this movie got so insane so as to distort the quality out of proportion. It's not Oscar-worthy. But it's also important to understand why people had their minds blown: This movie offered them a vision they had never seen before. A giant budget action movie immersed in celebrating African culture. I freely admit I had nothing approaching the imagination for how rich they were going to make this movie, or that they would take Black Panther this seriously, so as to make him a giant part of the Marvel world. **Infinity War** - This was what everyone was waiting for. The hype was impossible to live up to. The number of characters was impossible to manage. No way they can make the villain live up to what he needed to be. And I admit, this one had flaws in editing they just couldn't work through to make it a smooth movie all the way through. Maybe it was an impossible task. But they delivered on the villain and then some, the big moments, and again did something new: End a $300 million movie, connected to a larger franchise, with 5 minutes of stunned silence on behalf of the audience. It's one of those things, as a fan, that you hope they have the guts to do, but don't entirely expect them to really do it. But do it they did. **Ant-Man and The Wasp** - Needed to be a palette cleanser, and it was. Also new was the decision not to even have a major villain for the first time. **Endgame** - Smart enough to realize they needed to balance Infinity War with something a bit different, they gave us a movie that was mostly about character for most of it's length, instead of action set pieces. To end their giant story arc with one of the best movies? Well, you hope for it, but even talented producers and directors can't guarantee it. But, AGAIN, they did it. Nothing has ever been this consistent. Not Pixar, not James Bond, not anything in all of cinematic history. It should not have been possible. Great directors have bombed *one* superhero movie - just look at what happened when Ang Lee, Oscar-winning director, and the producers attached, tried to do Hulk years ago: They got the tone completely wrong, and completely misjudged why people might want to see a Hulk movie. These are easy mistakes to make. The balance of fan service and seriousness and proper tone, getting character development into the running time, or even just dealing with the bureaucracy and moneyed interests with things like this. None of this is anything approaching simple. But Marvel get it right time after time. They changed cinema forever, as well as the place of comic superhero lore in our society. It's not overrated, it's astonishing.","human_ref_B":"Actually I would say that the fast and furious movies are the most overrated and commercialized pieces of film. Plots are non existent, they might as well be directed by Michael Bay and the level of cringe is usually pretty high... yet they're so bad that they're good","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2933.0,"score_ratio":5.75} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2tvcy","c_root_id_B":"gq2tcog","created_at_utc_A":1615102827,"created_at_utc_B":1615102352,"score_A":23,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What Marvel has been able to do is remarkable. There has never been a studio or franchise in the history of cinema that has gotten things so right so many times over. You have no idea how impossible it should have been for them to guess right this many times in a row. Making any of these films is a much harder task that you're giving them credit for, first of all. Any of these concepts could have gone colossally wrong, hit the wrong tone, misjudged fan reaction, not found a way to edit extremely complex plots and many characters down into feature length, etc. Let's go trough the movies and realize what they did: **Iron Man** - Mostly a conventional superhero movie, but with the twist of Tony Stark's personality (people forget what a risk it was to put Robery Downey Jr. at the helm of this), the adherence to some level of believability and reality (the way he builds the suit, etc.), and the semi-improv interactions between Tony and Pepper giving it some heart and naturalness. Solid work for its time. **Thor** - In retrospect, it's not the best, but this could have gone SO wrong. You want to introduce a God pantheon into this fairly grounded world? And have people take it seriously? Good luck with that. But they did it. **Captain America 1** - Captain America should not work in this era. He's a relic. He's silly in the extreme. Getting people to back this goody-two-shoes in 2010 was an impossible task. But they did it. **Avengers** - None of these characters belong in the same movie. And you can't corral this many main characters into one movie. Sure, there was tremendous hype for this project that would have made a lot of people see it no matter what, but thinking to reach out of Joss Whedon to write and direct, they delivered so far beyond expectations that they emerged as a new giant in Hollywood. **Iron Man 3** - Iron Man 2 was lacking. Do we really need another one? How do we make this good and fresh? They thought to hire Shane Black, who proceeded to deliver one of the best and most rewatchable scripts in all the Marvel movies. He found a new approach to the story and character, and it again hit better than it had any right to. **Captain America: The Winder Soldier** - Now for their next trick, they're going to turn the geeky patriot into something to hang a compelling political thriller off of. This was so successful, hitting even higher notes than they had previously, that it was seen as a movie even people not into Marvel could see and enjoy. The story is incredibly clever and well-structured, winding through moments in a hybrid-conventional path that winds up working entirely. **Guardians of the Galaxy** - This *should* have been their first failure. Third-rate characters, cosmic silliness, a talking raccoon with a machine gun? Come on. Also, let's hire this slightly weird and unproven director to helm the thing, because we somehow know he'll deliver. Yet deliver he did: Comedy, heart, turning minor characters into huge hits, making an absurd space comedy into some people's favorite Marvel movie to date? What the hell? **Ant-Man** - There a reason this character was left for later. He's a dude who...turns a small as an ant. Yeah. Great. But thanks to Paul Rudd and more right notes, we got a nice little comedy out of it, and a needed tone shift from the bombastic Age of Ultron before it. **Captain America: Civil War** - Again, I can't emphasize enough how amazing Marvel's cultural timing is. What about all the civilians superheroes probably kill in all their fights? Just when we needed to start acknowledging that, they did. They also dared to fracture their giant cash cow heros into people trying to kill each other. You don't expect them to do that, but they did (Well...you might expect it *now*, but that partially because Marvel gave it to us in this movie years ago). **Doctor Strange** - Now we have to introduce literal *magic*. I really didn't know how they were going to make that work, let alone make people sit through *another* origin story. But...yep, they did. Again, they added just enough freshness with the magic effects and structure to make it work. **Spider-Man: Homecoming** - We've seen Spider-Man already. We're tired of him. Sony gave us 3 with Tobey McGuire, that hit all the expected notes and villains, then rebooted him, and now we're doing him *again*? Bad idea. Can only possibly work if you somehow give people a Spider-Man that's clearly superior and truer to the source material than the past two. And how can you guarantee that? It's not like Sony didn't try hard, spend a fortune, and have some success. But...they did it. Again. **Thor: Ragnarok** - This and Black Panther were afterthoughts on the upcoming list. Yeah, we have to get through those two, then we get what every fan was actually waiting for: Infinity War. This movie...why are we even making it? It's clear Thor isn't that interesting as a character, and there's nothing more to do with him. So...let's hire a weird Kiwi director and do an 80's vibe? And comedy? Really? You're *sure* that's not going to fail miserably, as it should 19 times out of 20? Nope, they somehow turned this into one of the best and most entertaining films yet. No one, not even die-hard fans, had this the expectation that the third Thor movie would end up being this good. **Black Panther** - The other 'also ran' before Infinity War. Now, I'll agree that the hype around this movie got so insane so as to distort the quality out of proportion. It's not Oscar-worthy. But it's also important to understand why people had their minds blown: This movie offered them a vision they had never seen before. A giant budget action movie immersed in celebrating African culture. I freely admit I had nothing approaching the imagination for how rich they were going to make this movie, or that they would take Black Panther this seriously, so as to make him a giant part of the Marvel world. **Infinity War** - This was what everyone was waiting for. The hype was impossible to live up to. The number of characters was impossible to manage. No way they can make the villain live up to what he needed to be. And I admit, this one had flaws in editing they just couldn't work through to make it a smooth movie all the way through. Maybe it was an impossible task. But they delivered on the villain and then some, the big moments, and again did something new: End a $300 million movie, connected to a larger franchise, with 5 minutes of stunned silence on behalf of the audience. It's one of those things, as a fan, that you hope they have the guts to do, but don't entirely expect them to really do it. But do it they did. **Ant-Man and The Wasp** - Needed to be a palette cleanser, and it was. Also new was the decision not to even have a major villain for the first time. **Endgame** - Smart enough to realize they needed to balance Infinity War with something a bit different, they gave us a movie that was mostly about character for most of it's length, instead of action set pieces. To end their giant story arc with one of the best movies? Well, you hope for it, but even talented producers and directors can't guarantee it. But, AGAIN, they did it. Nothing has ever been this consistent. Not Pixar, not James Bond, not anything in all of cinematic history. It should not have been possible. Great directors have bombed *one* superhero movie - just look at what happened when Ang Lee, Oscar-winning director, and the producers attached, tried to do Hulk years ago: They got the tone completely wrong, and completely misjudged why people might want to see a Hulk movie. These are easy mistakes to make. The balance of fan service and seriousness and proper tone, getting character development into the running time, or even just dealing with the bureaucracy and moneyed interests with things like this. None of this is anything approaching simple. But Marvel get it right time after time. They changed cinema forever, as well as the place of comic superhero lore in our society. It's not overrated, it's astonishing.","human_ref_B":"I think the problem is Marvel movies just aren\u2019t for you. People have different tastes and if we don\u2019t like the same things, nobody will care. For example, I do not watch movies were the main plot is romance. I just don\u2019t get the appeal, but if others like them, that\u2019s perfectly fine. If you\u2019re arguing that Marvel movies are objectively garbage, I\u2019d have to disagree with you. I believe the movies are decent\/good (depending on the movie). They are made to entertain and sprinkle in a few thought provoking questions occasionally. They don\u2019t just appeal to the lowest common denominator and they at least put in a large amount of effort. Do some people put marvel movies on too high of a pedestal? Yes. Do they stick a little too close to the formula? Yes. Does this make it inherently bad? I don\u2019t believe so.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":475.0,"score_ratio":4.6} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2n2qg","c_root_id_B":"gq2tvcy","created_at_utc_A":1615097257,"created_at_utc_B":1615102827,"score_A":4,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"You're not obligated to have seen them all in order to have an opinion, but out of curiosity, which Marvel movies have you seen?","human_ref_B":"What Marvel has been able to do is remarkable. There has never been a studio or franchise in the history of cinema that has gotten things so right so many times over. You have no idea how impossible it should have been for them to guess right this many times in a row. Making any of these films is a much harder task that you're giving them credit for, first of all. Any of these concepts could have gone colossally wrong, hit the wrong tone, misjudged fan reaction, not found a way to edit extremely complex plots and many characters down into feature length, etc. Let's go trough the movies and realize what they did: **Iron Man** - Mostly a conventional superhero movie, but with the twist of Tony Stark's personality (people forget what a risk it was to put Robery Downey Jr. at the helm of this), the adherence to some level of believability and reality (the way he builds the suit, etc.), and the semi-improv interactions between Tony and Pepper giving it some heart and naturalness. Solid work for its time. **Thor** - In retrospect, it's not the best, but this could have gone SO wrong. You want to introduce a God pantheon into this fairly grounded world? And have people take it seriously? Good luck with that. But they did it. **Captain America 1** - Captain America should not work in this era. He's a relic. He's silly in the extreme. Getting people to back this goody-two-shoes in 2010 was an impossible task. But they did it. **Avengers** - None of these characters belong in the same movie. And you can't corral this many main characters into one movie. Sure, there was tremendous hype for this project that would have made a lot of people see it no matter what, but thinking to reach out of Joss Whedon to write and direct, they delivered so far beyond expectations that they emerged as a new giant in Hollywood. **Iron Man 3** - Iron Man 2 was lacking. Do we really need another one? How do we make this good and fresh? They thought to hire Shane Black, who proceeded to deliver one of the best and most rewatchable scripts in all the Marvel movies. He found a new approach to the story and character, and it again hit better than it had any right to. **Captain America: The Winder Soldier** - Now for their next trick, they're going to turn the geeky patriot into something to hang a compelling political thriller off of. This was so successful, hitting even higher notes than they had previously, that it was seen as a movie even people not into Marvel could see and enjoy. The story is incredibly clever and well-structured, winding through moments in a hybrid-conventional path that winds up working entirely. **Guardians of the Galaxy** - This *should* have been their first failure. Third-rate characters, cosmic silliness, a talking raccoon with a machine gun? Come on. Also, let's hire this slightly weird and unproven director to helm the thing, because we somehow know he'll deliver. Yet deliver he did: Comedy, heart, turning minor characters into huge hits, making an absurd space comedy into some people's favorite Marvel movie to date? What the hell? **Ant-Man** - There a reason this character was left for later. He's a dude who...turns a small as an ant. Yeah. Great. But thanks to Paul Rudd and more right notes, we got a nice little comedy out of it, and a needed tone shift from the bombastic Age of Ultron before it. **Captain America: Civil War** - Again, I can't emphasize enough how amazing Marvel's cultural timing is. What about all the civilians superheroes probably kill in all their fights? Just when we needed to start acknowledging that, they did. They also dared to fracture their giant cash cow heros into people trying to kill each other. You don't expect them to do that, but they did (Well...you might expect it *now*, but that partially because Marvel gave it to us in this movie years ago). **Doctor Strange** - Now we have to introduce literal *magic*. I really didn't know how they were going to make that work, let alone make people sit through *another* origin story. But...yep, they did. Again, they added just enough freshness with the magic effects and structure to make it work. **Spider-Man: Homecoming** - We've seen Spider-Man already. We're tired of him. Sony gave us 3 with Tobey McGuire, that hit all the expected notes and villains, then rebooted him, and now we're doing him *again*? Bad idea. Can only possibly work if you somehow give people a Spider-Man that's clearly superior and truer to the source material than the past two. And how can you guarantee that? It's not like Sony didn't try hard, spend a fortune, and have some success. But...they did it. Again. **Thor: Ragnarok** - This and Black Panther were afterthoughts on the upcoming list. Yeah, we have to get through those two, then we get what every fan was actually waiting for: Infinity War. This movie...why are we even making it? It's clear Thor isn't that interesting as a character, and there's nothing more to do with him. So...let's hire a weird Kiwi director and do an 80's vibe? And comedy? Really? You're *sure* that's not going to fail miserably, as it should 19 times out of 20? Nope, they somehow turned this into one of the best and most entertaining films yet. No one, not even die-hard fans, had this the expectation that the third Thor movie would end up being this good. **Black Panther** - The other 'also ran' before Infinity War. Now, I'll agree that the hype around this movie got so insane so as to distort the quality out of proportion. It's not Oscar-worthy. But it's also important to understand why people had their minds blown: This movie offered them a vision they had never seen before. A giant budget action movie immersed in celebrating African culture. I freely admit I had nothing approaching the imagination for how rich they were going to make this movie, or that they would take Black Panther this seriously, so as to make him a giant part of the Marvel world. **Infinity War** - This was what everyone was waiting for. The hype was impossible to live up to. The number of characters was impossible to manage. No way they can make the villain live up to what he needed to be. And I admit, this one had flaws in editing they just couldn't work through to make it a smooth movie all the way through. Maybe it was an impossible task. But they delivered on the villain and then some, the big moments, and again did something new: End a $300 million movie, connected to a larger franchise, with 5 minutes of stunned silence on behalf of the audience. It's one of those things, as a fan, that you hope they have the guts to do, but don't entirely expect them to really do it. But do it they did. **Ant-Man and The Wasp** - Needed to be a palette cleanser, and it was. Also new was the decision not to even have a major villain for the first time. **Endgame** - Smart enough to realize they needed to balance Infinity War with something a bit different, they gave us a movie that was mostly about character for most of it's length, instead of action set pieces. To end their giant story arc with one of the best movies? Well, you hope for it, but even talented producers and directors can't guarantee it. But, AGAIN, they did it. Nothing has ever been this consistent. Not Pixar, not James Bond, not anything in all of cinematic history. It should not have been possible. Great directors have bombed *one* superhero movie - just look at what happened when Ang Lee, Oscar-winning director, and the producers attached, tried to do Hulk years ago: They got the tone completely wrong, and completely misjudged why people might want to see a Hulk movie. These are easy mistakes to make. The balance of fan service and seriousness and proper tone, getting character development into the running time, or even just dealing with the bureaucracy and moneyed interests with things like this. None of this is anything approaching simple. But Marvel get it right time after time. They changed cinema forever, as well as the place of comic superhero lore in our society. It's not overrated, it's astonishing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5570.0,"score_ratio":5.75} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2tvcy","c_root_id_B":"gq2qzxj","created_at_utc_A":1615102827,"created_at_utc_B":1615100283,"score_A":23,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What Marvel has been able to do is remarkable. There has never been a studio or franchise in the history of cinema that has gotten things so right so many times over. You have no idea how impossible it should have been for them to guess right this many times in a row. Making any of these films is a much harder task that you're giving them credit for, first of all. Any of these concepts could have gone colossally wrong, hit the wrong tone, misjudged fan reaction, not found a way to edit extremely complex plots and many characters down into feature length, etc. Let's go trough the movies and realize what they did: **Iron Man** - Mostly a conventional superhero movie, but with the twist of Tony Stark's personality (people forget what a risk it was to put Robery Downey Jr. at the helm of this), the adherence to some level of believability and reality (the way he builds the suit, etc.), and the semi-improv interactions between Tony and Pepper giving it some heart and naturalness. Solid work for its time. **Thor** - In retrospect, it's not the best, but this could have gone SO wrong. You want to introduce a God pantheon into this fairly grounded world? And have people take it seriously? Good luck with that. But they did it. **Captain America 1** - Captain America should not work in this era. He's a relic. He's silly in the extreme. Getting people to back this goody-two-shoes in 2010 was an impossible task. But they did it. **Avengers** - None of these characters belong in the same movie. And you can't corral this many main characters into one movie. Sure, there was tremendous hype for this project that would have made a lot of people see it no matter what, but thinking to reach out of Joss Whedon to write and direct, they delivered so far beyond expectations that they emerged as a new giant in Hollywood. **Iron Man 3** - Iron Man 2 was lacking. Do we really need another one? How do we make this good and fresh? They thought to hire Shane Black, who proceeded to deliver one of the best and most rewatchable scripts in all the Marvel movies. He found a new approach to the story and character, and it again hit better than it had any right to. **Captain America: The Winder Soldier** - Now for their next trick, they're going to turn the geeky patriot into something to hang a compelling political thriller off of. This was so successful, hitting even higher notes than they had previously, that it was seen as a movie even people not into Marvel could see and enjoy. The story is incredibly clever and well-structured, winding through moments in a hybrid-conventional path that winds up working entirely. **Guardians of the Galaxy** - This *should* have been their first failure. Third-rate characters, cosmic silliness, a talking raccoon with a machine gun? Come on. Also, let's hire this slightly weird and unproven director to helm the thing, because we somehow know he'll deliver. Yet deliver he did: Comedy, heart, turning minor characters into huge hits, making an absurd space comedy into some people's favorite Marvel movie to date? What the hell? **Ant-Man** - There a reason this character was left for later. He's a dude who...turns a small as an ant. Yeah. Great. But thanks to Paul Rudd and more right notes, we got a nice little comedy out of it, and a needed tone shift from the bombastic Age of Ultron before it. **Captain America: Civil War** - Again, I can't emphasize enough how amazing Marvel's cultural timing is. What about all the civilians superheroes probably kill in all their fights? Just when we needed to start acknowledging that, they did. They also dared to fracture their giant cash cow heros into people trying to kill each other. You don't expect them to do that, but they did (Well...you might expect it *now*, but that partially because Marvel gave it to us in this movie years ago). **Doctor Strange** - Now we have to introduce literal *magic*. I really didn't know how they were going to make that work, let alone make people sit through *another* origin story. But...yep, they did. Again, they added just enough freshness with the magic effects and structure to make it work. **Spider-Man: Homecoming** - We've seen Spider-Man already. We're tired of him. Sony gave us 3 with Tobey McGuire, that hit all the expected notes and villains, then rebooted him, and now we're doing him *again*? Bad idea. Can only possibly work if you somehow give people a Spider-Man that's clearly superior and truer to the source material than the past two. And how can you guarantee that? It's not like Sony didn't try hard, spend a fortune, and have some success. But...they did it. Again. **Thor: Ragnarok** - This and Black Panther were afterthoughts on the upcoming list. Yeah, we have to get through those two, then we get what every fan was actually waiting for: Infinity War. This movie...why are we even making it? It's clear Thor isn't that interesting as a character, and there's nothing more to do with him. So...let's hire a weird Kiwi director and do an 80's vibe? And comedy? Really? You're *sure* that's not going to fail miserably, as it should 19 times out of 20? Nope, they somehow turned this into one of the best and most entertaining films yet. No one, not even die-hard fans, had this the expectation that the third Thor movie would end up being this good. **Black Panther** - The other 'also ran' before Infinity War. Now, I'll agree that the hype around this movie got so insane so as to distort the quality out of proportion. It's not Oscar-worthy. But it's also important to understand why people had their minds blown: This movie offered them a vision they had never seen before. A giant budget action movie immersed in celebrating African culture. I freely admit I had nothing approaching the imagination for how rich they were going to make this movie, or that they would take Black Panther this seriously, so as to make him a giant part of the Marvel world. **Infinity War** - This was what everyone was waiting for. The hype was impossible to live up to. The number of characters was impossible to manage. No way they can make the villain live up to what he needed to be. And I admit, this one had flaws in editing they just couldn't work through to make it a smooth movie all the way through. Maybe it was an impossible task. But they delivered on the villain and then some, the big moments, and again did something new: End a $300 million movie, connected to a larger franchise, with 5 minutes of stunned silence on behalf of the audience. It's one of those things, as a fan, that you hope they have the guts to do, but don't entirely expect them to really do it. But do it they did. **Ant-Man and The Wasp** - Needed to be a palette cleanser, and it was. Also new was the decision not to even have a major villain for the first time. **Endgame** - Smart enough to realize they needed to balance Infinity War with something a bit different, they gave us a movie that was mostly about character for most of it's length, instead of action set pieces. To end their giant story arc with one of the best movies? Well, you hope for it, but even talented producers and directors can't guarantee it. But, AGAIN, they did it. Nothing has ever been this consistent. Not Pixar, not James Bond, not anything in all of cinematic history. It should not have been possible. Great directors have bombed *one* superhero movie - just look at what happened when Ang Lee, Oscar-winning director, and the producers attached, tried to do Hulk years ago: They got the tone completely wrong, and completely misjudged why people might want to see a Hulk movie. These are easy mistakes to make. The balance of fan service and seriousness and proper tone, getting character development into the running time, or even just dealing with the bureaucracy and moneyed interests with things like this. None of this is anything approaching simple. But Marvel get it right time after time. They changed cinema forever, as well as the place of comic superhero lore in our society. It's not overrated, it's astonishing.","human_ref_B":"First of all it\u2019s an subjective experience. If you don\u2019t like them that\u2019s ok, I can\u2019t stand Harry Potter, or hunger games, and I don\u2019t really understand the hype but they\u2019re just not my thing. That being said, marvel is kind of following the comic book logic, the fact that all the origin movies are kind of the same is unfortunate but on the other hand marvel really takes time to build up their characters so that the later experiences are that much more impactful. If you\u2019ve followed let\u2019s say the captain America movies and the avengers movies up until civil war, the emotional payoff for civil war is much greater because you\u2019ve spent a lot of time with those characters so you\u2019ve seen captain America go from being a Boy Scout to being conflicted with how his morality fits in a world full of grey areas. It\u2019s something that you\u2019d expect to see in a tv format and not usually for films. Also the marvel Netflix stuff was awesome. Daredevil and Punisher especially. That being said some of it is silly but a lot of it is freaking awesome. And it certainly is not the worst thing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2544.0,"score_ratio":11.5} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2tvcy","c_root_id_B":"gq2sgyf","created_at_utc_A":1615102827,"created_at_utc_B":1615101561,"score_A":23,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What Marvel has been able to do is remarkable. There has never been a studio or franchise in the history of cinema that has gotten things so right so many times over. You have no idea how impossible it should have been for them to guess right this many times in a row. Making any of these films is a much harder task that you're giving them credit for, first of all. Any of these concepts could have gone colossally wrong, hit the wrong tone, misjudged fan reaction, not found a way to edit extremely complex plots and many characters down into feature length, etc. Let's go trough the movies and realize what they did: **Iron Man** - Mostly a conventional superhero movie, but with the twist of Tony Stark's personality (people forget what a risk it was to put Robery Downey Jr. at the helm of this), the adherence to some level of believability and reality (the way he builds the suit, etc.), and the semi-improv interactions between Tony and Pepper giving it some heart and naturalness. Solid work for its time. **Thor** - In retrospect, it's not the best, but this could have gone SO wrong. You want to introduce a God pantheon into this fairly grounded world? And have people take it seriously? Good luck with that. But they did it. **Captain America 1** - Captain America should not work in this era. He's a relic. He's silly in the extreme. Getting people to back this goody-two-shoes in 2010 was an impossible task. But they did it. **Avengers** - None of these characters belong in the same movie. And you can't corral this many main characters into one movie. Sure, there was tremendous hype for this project that would have made a lot of people see it no matter what, but thinking to reach out of Joss Whedon to write and direct, they delivered so far beyond expectations that they emerged as a new giant in Hollywood. **Iron Man 3** - Iron Man 2 was lacking. Do we really need another one? How do we make this good and fresh? They thought to hire Shane Black, who proceeded to deliver one of the best and most rewatchable scripts in all the Marvel movies. He found a new approach to the story and character, and it again hit better than it had any right to. **Captain America: The Winder Soldier** - Now for their next trick, they're going to turn the geeky patriot into something to hang a compelling political thriller off of. This was so successful, hitting even higher notes than they had previously, that it was seen as a movie even people not into Marvel could see and enjoy. The story is incredibly clever and well-structured, winding through moments in a hybrid-conventional path that winds up working entirely. **Guardians of the Galaxy** - This *should* have been their first failure. Third-rate characters, cosmic silliness, a talking raccoon with a machine gun? Come on. Also, let's hire this slightly weird and unproven director to helm the thing, because we somehow know he'll deliver. Yet deliver he did: Comedy, heart, turning minor characters into huge hits, making an absurd space comedy into some people's favorite Marvel movie to date? What the hell? **Ant-Man** - There a reason this character was left for later. He's a dude who...turns a small as an ant. Yeah. Great. But thanks to Paul Rudd and more right notes, we got a nice little comedy out of it, and a needed tone shift from the bombastic Age of Ultron before it. **Captain America: Civil War** - Again, I can't emphasize enough how amazing Marvel's cultural timing is. What about all the civilians superheroes probably kill in all their fights? Just when we needed to start acknowledging that, they did. They also dared to fracture their giant cash cow heros into people trying to kill each other. You don't expect them to do that, but they did (Well...you might expect it *now*, but that partially because Marvel gave it to us in this movie years ago). **Doctor Strange** - Now we have to introduce literal *magic*. I really didn't know how they were going to make that work, let alone make people sit through *another* origin story. But...yep, they did. Again, they added just enough freshness with the magic effects and structure to make it work. **Spider-Man: Homecoming** - We've seen Spider-Man already. We're tired of him. Sony gave us 3 with Tobey McGuire, that hit all the expected notes and villains, then rebooted him, and now we're doing him *again*? Bad idea. Can only possibly work if you somehow give people a Spider-Man that's clearly superior and truer to the source material than the past two. And how can you guarantee that? It's not like Sony didn't try hard, spend a fortune, and have some success. But...they did it. Again. **Thor: Ragnarok** - This and Black Panther were afterthoughts on the upcoming list. Yeah, we have to get through those two, then we get what every fan was actually waiting for: Infinity War. This movie...why are we even making it? It's clear Thor isn't that interesting as a character, and there's nothing more to do with him. So...let's hire a weird Kiwi director and do an 80's vibe? And comedy? Really? You're *sure* that's not going to fail miserably, as it should 19 times out of 20? Nope, they somehow turned this into one of the best and most entertaining films yet. No one, not even die-hard fans, had this the expectation that the third Thor movie would end up being this good. **Black Panther** - The other 'also ran' before Infinity War. Now, I'll agree that the hype around this movie got so insane so as to distort the quality out of proportion. It's not Oscar-worthy. But it's also important to understand why people had their minds blown: This movie offered them a vision they had never seen before. A giant budget action movie immersed in celebrating African culture. I freely admit I had nothing approaching the imagination for how rich they were going to make this movie, or that they would take Black Panther this seriously, so as to make him a giant part of the Marvel world. **Infinity War** - This was what everyone was waiting for. The hype was impossible to live up to. The number of characters was impossible to manage. No way they can make the villain live up to what he needed to be. And I admit, this one had flaws in editing they just couldn't work through to make it a smooth movie all the way through. Maybe it was an impossible task. But they delivered on the villain and then some, the big moments, and again did something new: End a $300 million movie, connected to a larger franchise, with 5 minutes of stunned silence on behalf of the audience. It's one of those things, as a fan, that you hope they have the guts to do, but don't entirely expect them to really do it. But do it they did. **Ant-Man and The Wasp** - Needed to be a palette cleanser, and it was. Also new was the decision not to even have a major villain for the first time. **Endgame** - Smart enough to realize they needed to balance Infinity War with something a bit different, they gave us a movie that was mostly about character for most of it's length, instead of action set pieces. To end their giant story arc with one of the best movies? Well, you hope for it, but even talented producers and directors can't guarantee it. But, AGAIN, they did it. Nothing has ever been this consistent. Not Pixar, not James Bond, not anything in all of cinematic history. It should not have been possible. Great directors have bombed *one* superhero movie - just look at what happened when Ang Lee, Oscar-winning director, and the producers attached, tried to do Hulk years ago: They got the tone completely wrong, and completely misjudged why people might want to see a Hulk movie. These are easy mistakes to make. The balance of fan service and seriousness and proper tone, getting character development into the running time, or even just dealing with the bureaucracy and moneyed interests with things like this. None of this is anything approaching simple. But Marvel get it right time after time. They changed cinema forever, as well as the place of comic superhero lore in our society. It's not overrated, it's astonishing.","human_ref_B":"Who hurt you ?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1266.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2qj2v","c_root_id_B":"gq4ax2y","created_at_utc_A":1615099894,"created_at_utc_B":1615140763,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Actually I would say that the fast and furious movies are the most overrated and commercialized pieces of film. Plots are non existent, they might as well be directed by Michael Bay and the level of cringe is usually pretty high... yet they're so bad that they're good","human_ref_B":"From what I've seen you comment, you really hate the fact they take these characters and movies seriously. You have defended Transformers and the Fast and the Furious films, because they 'know they're silly', but I would argue that MOST of both of those franchises take their stories as seriously as Marvel do. The difference is Marvel actually succeeds at crafting films that can be taken seriously, despite the silly\/fantastical elements. Are the only blockbusters you enjoy the ones that fail critically? IMO lots of Marvel movies are mediocre, but the big event flicks that build off of them are very satisfying.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":40869.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq4ax2y","c_root_id_B":"gq2wt46","created_at_utc_A":1615140763,"created_at_utc_B":1615105676,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"From what I've seen you comment, you really hate the fact they take these characters and movies seriously. You have defended Transformers and the Fast and the Furious films, because they 'know they're silly', but I would argue that MOST of both of those franchises take their stories as seriously as Marvel do. The difference is Marvel actually succeeds at crafting films that can be taken seriously, despite the silly\/fantastical elements. Are the only blockbusters you enjoy the ones that fail critically? IMO lots of Marvel movies are mediocre, but the big event flicks that build off of them are very satisfying.","human_ref_B":"Are you really sure you are not just hating on marvel movies because they are the most recent popular thing?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35087.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2n2qg","c_root_id_B":"gq4ax2y","created_at_utc_A":1615097257,"created_at_utc_B":1615140763,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You're not obligated to have seen them all in order to have an opinion, but out of curiosity, which Marvel movies have you seen?","human_ref_B":"From what I've seen you comment, you really hate the fact they take these characters and movies seriously. You have defended Transformers and the Fast and the Furious films, because they 'know they're silly', but I would argue that MOST of both of those franchises take their stories as seriously as Marvel do. The difference is Marvel actually succeeds at crafting films that can be taken seriously, despite the silly\/fantastical elements. Are the only blockbusters you enjoy the ones that fail critically? IMO lots of Marvel movies are mediocre, but the big event flicks that build off of them are very satisfying.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":43506.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq4ax2y","c_root_id_B":"gq2qzxj","created_at_utc_A":1615140763,"created_at_utc_B":1615100283,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"From what I've seen you comment, you really hate the fact they take these characters and movies seriously. You have defended Transformers and the Fast and the Furious films, because they 'know they're silly', but I would argue that MOST of both of those franchises take their stories as seriously as Marvel do. The difference is Marvel actually succeeds at crafting films that can be taken seriously, despite the silly\/fantastical elements. Are the only blockbusters you enjoy the ones that fail critically? IMO lots of Marvel movies are mediocre, but the big event flicks that build off of them are very satisfying.","human_ref_B":"First of all it\u2019s an subjective experience. If you don\u2019t like them that\u2019s ok, I can\u2019t stand Harry Potter, or hunger games, and I don\u2019t really understand the hype but they\u2019re just not my thing. That being said, marvel is kind of following the comic book logic, the fact that all the origin movies are kind of the same is unfortunate but on the other hand marvel really takes time to build up their characters so that the later experiences are that much more impactful. If you\u2019ve followed let\u2019s say the captain America movies and the avengers movies up until civil war, the emotional payoff for civil war is much greater because you\u2019ve spent a lot of time with those characters so you\u2019ve seen captain America go from being a Boy Scout to being conflicted with how his morality fits in a world full of grey areas. It\u2019s something that you\u2019d expect to see in a tv format and not usually for films. Also the marvel Netflix stuff was awesome. Daredevil and Punisher especially. That being said some of it is silly but a lot of it is freaking awesome. And it certainly is not the worst thing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":40480.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2sgyf","c_root_id_B":"gq4ax2y","created_at_utc_A":1615101561,"created_at_utc_B":1615140763,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Who hurt you ?","human_ref_B":"From what I've seen you comment, you really hate the fact they take these characters and movies seriously. You have defended Transformers and the Fast and the Furious films, because they 'know they're silly', but I would argue that MOST of both of those franchises take their stories as seriously as Marvel do. The difference is Marvel actually succeeds at crafting films that can be taken seriously, despite the silly\/fantastical elements. Are the only blockbusters you enjoy the ones that fail critically? IMO lots of Marvel movies are mediocre, but the big event flicks that build off of them are very satisfying.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":39202.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2qj2v","c_root_id_B":"gq2tcog","created_at_utc_A":1615099894,"created_at_utc_B":1615102352,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Actually I would say that the fast and furious movies are the most overrated and commercialized pieces of film. Plots are non existent, they might as well be directed by Michael Bay and the level of cringe is usually pretty high... yet they're so bad that they're good","human_ref_B":"I think the problem is Marvel movies just aren\u2019t for you. People have different tastes and if we don\u2019t like the same things, nobody will care. For example, I do not watch movies were the main plot is romance. I just don\u2019t get the appeal, but if others like them, that\u2019s perfectly fine. If you\u2019re arguing that Marvel movies are objectively garbage, I\u2019d have to disagree with you. I believe the movies are decent\/good (depending on the movie). They are made to entertain and sprinkle in a few thought provoking questions occasionally. They don\u2019t just appeal to the lowest common denominator and they at least put in a large amount of effort. Do some people put marvel movies on too high of a pedestal? Yes. Do they stick a little too close to the formula? Yes. Does this make it inherently bad? I don\u2019t believe so.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2458.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2n2qg","c_root_id_B":"gq2tcog","created_at_utc_A":1615097257,"created_at_utc_B":1615102352,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You're not obligated to have seen them all in order to have an opinion, but out of curiosity, which Marvel movies have you seen?","human_ref_B":"I think the problem is Marvel movies just aren\u2019t for you. People have different tastes and if we don\u2019t like the same things, nobody will care. For example, I do not watch movies were the main plot is romance. I just don\u2019t get the appeal, but if others like them, that\u2019s perfectly fine. If you\u2019re arguing that Marvel movies are objectively garbage, I\u2019d have to disagree with you. I believe the movies are decent\/good (depending on the movie). They are made to entertain and sprinkle in a few thought provoking questions occasionally. They don\u2019t just appeal to the lowest common denominator and they at least put in a large amount of effort. Do some people put marvel movies on too high of a pedestal? Yes. Do they stick a little too close to the formula? Yes. Does this make it inherently bad? I don\u2019t believe so.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5095.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2qzxj","c_root_id_B":"gq2tcog","created_at_utc_A":1615100283,"created_at_utc_B":1615102352,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"First of all it\u2019s an subjective experience. If you don\u2019t like them that\u2019s ok, I can\u2019t stand Harry Potter, or hunger games, and I don\u2019t really understand the hype but they\u2019re just not my thing. That being said, marvel is kind of following the comic book logic, the fact that all the origin movies are kind of the same is unfortunate but on the other hand marvel really takes time to build up their characters so that the later experiences are that much more impactful. If you\u2019ve followed let\u2019s say the captain America movies and the avengers movies up until civil war, the emotional payoff for civil war is much greater because you\u2019ve spent a lot of time with those characters so you\u2019ve seen captain America go from being a Boy Scout to being conflicted with how his morality fits in a world full of grey areas. It\u2019s something that you\u2019d expect to see in a tv format and not usually for films. Also the marvel Netflix stuff was awesome. Daredevil and Punisher especially. That being said some of it is silly but a lot of it is freaking awesome. And it certainly is not the worst thing.","human_ref_B":"I think the problem is Marvel movies just aren\u2019t for you. People have different tastes and if we don\u2019t like the same things, nobody will care. For example, I do not watch movies were the main plot is romance. I just don\u2019t get the appeal, but if others like them, that\u2019s perfectly fine. If you\u2019re arguing that Marvel movies are objectively garbage, I\u2019d have to disagree with you. I believe the movies are decent\/good (depending on the movie). They are made to entertain and sprinkle in a few thought provoking questions occasionally. They don\u2019t just appeal to the lowest common denominator and they at least put in a large amount of effort. Do some people put marvel movies on too high of a pedestal? Yes. Do they stick a little too close to the formula? Yes. Does this make it inherently bad? I don\u2019t believe so.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2069.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2sgyf","c_root_id_B":"gq2tcog","created_at_utc_A":1615101561,"created_at_utc_B":1615102352,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Who hurt you ?","human_ref_B":"I think the problem is Marvel movies just aren\u2019t for you. People have different tastes and if we don\u2019t like the same things, nobody will care. For example, I do not watch movies were the main plot is romance. I just don\u2019t get the appeal, but if others like them, that\u2019s perfectly fine. If you\u2019re arguing that Marvel movies are objectively garbage, I\u2019d have to disagree with you. I believe the movies are decent\/good (depending on the movie). They are made to entertain and sprinkle in a few thought provoking questions occasionally. They don\u2019t just appeal to the lowest common denominator and they at least put in a large amount of effort. Do some people put marvel movies on too high of a pedestal? Yes. Do they stick a little too close to the formula? Yes. Does this make it inherently bad? I don\u2019t believe so.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":791.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2wt46","c_root_id_B":"gq2qzxj","created_at_utc_A":1615105676,"created_at_utc_B":1615100283,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Are you really sure you are not just hating on marvel movies because they are the most recent popular thing?","human_ref_B":"First of all it\u2019s an subjective experience. If you don\u2019t like them that\u2019s ok, I can\u2019t stand Harry Potter, or hunger games, and I don\u2019t really understand the hype but they\u2019re just not my thing. That being said, marvel is kind of following the comic book logic, the fact that all the origin movies are kind of the same is unfortunate but on the other hand marvel really takes time to build up their characters so that the later experiences are that much more impactful. If you\u2019ve followed let\u2019s say the captain America movies and the avengers movies up until civil war, the emotional payoff for civil war is much greater because you\u2019ve spent a lot of time with those characters so you\u2019ve seen captain America go from being a Boy Scout to being conflicted with how his morality fits in a world full of grey areas. It\u2019s something that you\u2019d expect to see in a tv format and not usually for films. Also the marvel Netflix stuff was awesome. Daredevil and Punisher especially. That being said some of it is silly but a lot of it is freaking awesome. And it certainly is not the worst thing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5393.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2sgyf","c_root_id_B":"gq2wt46","created_at_utc_A":1615101561,"created_at_utc_B":1615105676,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Who hurt you ?","human_ref_B":"Are you really sure you are not just hating on marvel movies because they are the most recent popular thing?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4115.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"lzkejz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: Marvel movies\/tv shows are the most overrated, over-commercialized pieces of garbage in the history of film first thing is i'm not really a film guy, i have film guy friends but they're out of my league. i've always been a music guy. but yea i think that marvel movies, really any superhero movies but especially marvel movies because they aren't so-bad-they're-good like some of the other superhero movies in DC, are beyond awful and are slowly poisoning our culture and everyone in it to accept the bare minimum amount of creativity to satisfy them. they are the culmination of hollywood creative laziness and its promotion of CGI-fueled bombastic trash, that repeats the same story and the same formula again and again and again. sometimes they pretend to be depthful and artsy and seem to have no awareness at all that they're dealing with cheap characters made for kids that wear tights and shoot lightning bolts out of their hands. i have no idea how people can like them, there is nothing in pop culture today that i despise more. i have felt like i've been taking crazy pills since the first avengers came out in 2012. but even the nolan batman films had this exact same insane reaction. say what you want about the cowboy era of film and how it was derivative, at least they didn't have the searchers part 10","c_root_id_A":"gq2sgyf","c_root_id_B":"gq2qzxj","created_at_utc_A":1615101561,"created_at_utc_B":1615100283,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Who hurt you ?","human_ref_B":"First of all it\u2019s an subjective experience. If you don\u2019t like them that\u2019s ok, I can\u2019t stand Harry Potter, or hunger games, and I don\u2019t really understand the hype but they\u2019re just not my thing. That being said, marvel is kind of following the comic book logic, the fact that all the origin movies are kind of the same is unfortunate but on the other hand marvel really takes time to build up their characters so that the later experiences are that much more impactful. If you\u2019ve followed let\u2019s say the captain America movies and the avengers movies up until civil war, the emotional payoff for civil war is much greater because you\u2019ve spent a lot of time with those characters so you\u2019ve seen captain America go from being a Boy Scout to being conflicted with how his morality fits in a world full of grey areas. It\u2019s something that you\u2019d expect to see in a tv format and not usually for films. Also the marvel Netflix stuff was awesome. Daredevil and Punisher especially. That being said some of it is silly but a lot of it is freaking awesome. And it certainly is not the worst thing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1278.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"iiz9m79","c_root_id_B":"iiz7km5","created_at_utc_A":1659652960,"created_at_utc_B":1659652095,"score_A":877,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"The point of this statement isn\u2019t to simply state ones biological sex\u2026 A person is assigned either male or female at birth. The sex may be determined beforehand, like via an ultrasound (which is hardly definitive) but it\u2019s finalized at birth. Birth is when the birth certificate is made\u2026when the name is given, and the sex is declared on a document that will be used officially by the government and follow that individual around for life. So it\u2019s a definitive point in time when their sex was \u201cdeclared\u201d, and legally binding. But this is only ONE aspect of why this term is used. Stating one\u2019s agab also helps quickly convey information about a person\u2019s experience\u2026.both biological experiences and social expectations\u2026like if they had to deal with having a period and be told to wear dress, or experience their voice drop and be told to \u201cbe manly\u201d\u2026 At no point for any of these does the fact that the person was already male or female before birth have any relevance\u2026.but the MOMENT that their sex was officially documented in their permanent records does play a significant part in their life story\u2026","human_ref_B":"Intersex conditions, you admit exist, but also that they don't change your view? My condition wasn't discovered til my mid 20s, because it comes in the form of an absence of hormones. Many conditions don't show until puberty.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":865.0,"score_ratio":18.2708333333} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"iiz9m79","c_root_id_B":"iiz95gc","created_at_utc_A":1659652960,"created_at_utc_B":1659652762,"score_A":877,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"The point of this statement isn\u2019t to simply state ones biological sex\u2026 A person is assigned either male or female at birth. The sex may be determined beforehand, like via an ultrasound (which is hardly definitive) but it\u2019s finalized at birth. Birth is when the birth certificate is made\u2026when the name is given, and the sex is declared on a document that will be used officially by the government and follow that individual around for life. So it\u2019s a definitive point in time when their sex was \u201cdeclared\u201d, and legally binding. But this is only ONE aspect of why this term is used. Stating one\u2019s agab also helps quickly convey information about a person\u2019s experience\u2026.both biological experiences and social expectations\u2026like if they had to deal with having a period and be told to wear dress, or experience their voice drop and be told to \u201cbe manly\u201d\u2026 At no point for any of these does the fact that the person was already male or female before birth have any relevance\u2026.but the MOMENT that their sex was officially documented in their permanent records does play a significant part in their life story\u2026","human_ref_B":"Sex assignment is on a person's birth certificate. You are not legally assigned a sex until you are born and your genitals are inspected by a physician or family member. At conception, a human being is a zygote. It has not yet developed sex characteristics and its sex cannot be discerned. Sex can typically be discerned at around 18-21 weeks, but this isn't always accurate. It's not at all rare for someone's sex to be misinterpreted based on an ultrasound.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":198.0,"score_ratio":38.1304347826} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"iiz9m79","c_root_id_B":"iiz7eet","created_at_utc_A":1659652960,"created_at_utc_B":1659652023,"score_A":877,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The point of this statement isn\u2019t to simply state ones biological sex\u2026 A person is assigned either male or female at birth. The sex may be determined beforehand, like via an ultrasound (which is hardly definitive) but it\u2019s finalized at birth. Birth is when the birth certificate is made\u2026when the name is given, and the sex is declared on a document that will be used officially by the government and follow that individual around for life. So it\u2019s a definitive point in time when their sex was \u201cdeclared\u201d, and legally binding. But this is only ONE aspect of why this term is used. Stating one\u2019s agab also helps quickly convey information about a person\u2019s experience\u2026.both biological experiences and social expectations\u2026like if they had to deal with having a period and be told to wear dress, or experience their voice drop and be told to \u201cbe manly\u201d\u2026 At no point for any of these does the fact that the person was already male or female before birth have any relevance\u2026.but the MOMENT that their sex was officially documented in their permanent records does play a significant part in their life story\u2026","human_ref_B":"\u201cAssigned at birth\u201d refers to gender, not biological sex.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":937.0,"score_ratio":97.4444444444} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"ij01tbn","c_root_id_B":"iiz7km5","created_at_utc_A":1659665432,"created_at_utc_B":1659652095,"score_A":91,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"The phrase isn't meant to be literal, like a lot of things. The say is at birth because it is at birth that it is officially recorded. Doctors have been wrong before about a babies sex via ultrasounds so there's a pretty good guess in the uterus, but not a confirmed truth. Additionally, this might help you too. Sex of a baby is determined as early as 14 weeks, i.e. 3 months into the pregnancy. Any time before that and the fetus is indistinguishable. The reason being? Up until the two month mark, and here's the fun fact for you, all human embryos are *female*. This applies to all embryos of mammals. At the 2 month mark is where enough androgens are present to counteract the mother's estrogen, thus embryos can then develop male. How it works is that yes, DNA wise all eggs are X chromosomes, sperms can carry X or Y. XX is female, XY is male. The thing is though, up until the two month mark, that Y chromosome isn't active and all embryos develop the same, inherently, as female. Once the Y chromosomes special gene (SRY) is turned on, then production of male reproductive organs begin. But here's another fun fact, 1 in 15,000 genetically born males end up developing and living their lives as women due to genetic mutations affecting the SRY genes. These women will appear as such externally, but internally may have issues. Fee can still give birth, and often these genetic mutations aren't discovered until later in life simply because it is hard to tell the difference. Essentially, a girl at birth could be genetically male, and never know for quite some time. The overall point is, sex is a bit more complicated than thinking you can just attribute the sex of a baby at conception and scientifically speaking, the only sex present at conception is on a genetic level, and that's ultimately female until the Y chromosomes genes are triggered 2 months later, successfully without any mutations later. Sources: https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/4470128\/#:~:text=Geneticists%20have%20discovered%20that%20all,maternal%20estrogens%20and%20maleness%20develops. https:\/\/novonordiskfonden.dk\/en\/news\/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men\/","human_ref_B":"Intersex conditions, you admit exist, but also that they don't change your view? My condition wasn't discovered til my mid 20s, because it comes in the form of an absence of hormones. Many conditions don't show until puberty.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13337.0,"score_ratio":1.8958333333} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"ij01tbn","c_root_id_B":"iiz95gc","created_at_utc_A":1659665432,"created_at_utc_B":1659652762,"score_A":91,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"The phrase isn't meant to be literal, like a lot of things. The say is at birth because it is at birth that it is officially recorded. Doctors have been wrong before about a babies sex via ultrasounds so there's a pretty good guess in the uterus, but not a confirmed truth. Additionally, this might help you too. Sex of a baby is determined as early as 14 weeks, i.e. 3 months into the pregnancy. Any time before that and the fetus is indistinguishable. The reason being? Up until the two month mark, and here's the fun fact for you, all human embryos are *female*. This applies to all embryos of mammals. At the 2 month mark is where enough androgens are present to counteract the mother's estrogen, thus embryos can then develop male. How it works is that yes, DNA wise all eggs are X chromosomes, sperms can carry X or Y. XX is female, XY is male. The thing is though, up until the two month mark, that Y chromosome isn't active and all embryos develop the same, inherently, as female. Once the Y chromosomes special gene (SRY) is turned on, then production of male reproductive organs begin. But here's another fun fact, 1 in 15,000 genetically born males end up developing and living their lives as women due to genetic mutations affecting the SRY genes. These women will appear as such externally, but internally may have issues. Fee can still give birth, and often these genetic mutations aren't discovered until later in life simply because it is hard to tell the difference. Essentially, a girl at birth could be genetically male, and never know for quite some time. The overall point is, sex is a bit more complicated than thinking you can just attribute the sex of a baby at conception and scientifically speaking, the only sex present at conception is on a genetic level, and that's ultimately female until the Y chromosomes genes are triggered 2 months later, successfully without any mutations later. Sources: https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/4470128\/#:~:text=Geneticists%20have%20discovered%20that%20all,maternal%20estrogens%20and%20maleness%20develops. https:\/\/novonordiskfonden.dk\/en\/news\/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men\/","human_ref_B":"Sex assignment is on a person's birth certificate. You are not legally assigned a sex until you are born and your genitals are inspected by a physician or family member. At conception, a human being is a zygote. It has not yet developed sex characteristics and its sex cannot be discerned. Sex can typically be discerned at around 18-21 weeks, but this isn't always accurate. It's not at all rare for someone's sex to be misinterpreted based on an ultrasound.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12670.0,"score_ratio":3.9565217391} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"ij01tbn","c_root_id_B":"iizbhl2","created_at_utc_A":1659665432,"created_at_utc_B":1659653754,"score_A":91,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"The phrase isn't meant to be literal, like a lot of things. The say is at birth because it is at birth that it is officially recorded. Doctors have been wrong before about a babies sex via ultrasounds so there's a pretty good guess in the uterus, but not a confirmed truth. Additionally, this might help you too. Sex of a baby is determined as early as 14 weeks, i.e. 3 months into the pregnancy. Any time before that and the fetus is indistinguishable. The reason being? Up until the two month mark, and here's the fun fact for you, all human embryos are *female*. This applies to all embryos of mammals. At the 2 month mark is where enough androgens are present to counteract the mother's estrogen, thus embryos can then develop male. How it works is that yes, DNA wise all eggs are X chromosomes, sperms can carry X or Y. XX is female, XY is male. The thing is though, up until the two month mark, that Y chromosome isn't active and all embryos develop the same, inherently, as female. Once the Y chromosomes special gene (SRY) is turned on, then production of male reproductive organs begin. But here's another fun fact, 1 in 15,000 genetically born males end up developing and living their lives as women due to genetic mutations affecting the SRY genes. These women will appear as such externally, but internally may have issues. Fee can still give birth, and often these genetic mutations aren't discovered until later in life simply because it is hard to tell the difference. Essentially, a girl at birth could be genetically male, and never know for quite some time. The overall point is, sex is a bit more complicated than thinking you can just attribute the sex of a baby at conception and scientifically speaking, the only sex present at conception is on a genetic level, and that's ultimately female until the Y chromosomes genes are triggered 2 months later, successfully without any mutations later. Sources: https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/4470128\/#:~:text=Geneticists%20have%20discovered%20that%20all,maternal%20estrogens%20and%20maleness%20develops. https:\/\/novonordiskfonden.dk\/en\/news\/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men\/","human_ref_B":"Biological sex may be *known* as soon as you do certain kinds of testing. But nothing gets \"assigned\" anywhere based on that. It's just something that the prospective parents and their doctor know about. But when you're born, you get formally \"assigned\" a sex as your birth certificate is issued. Nothing biological happens to your sex at birth, but that's when the administrative paperwork happens and something actually gets written down in a formal record. There are other terms that could have been chosen as well that would ultimately mean the same thing, but this one seems to make sense to me.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11678.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"iiz7eet","c_root_id_B":"ij01tbn","created_at_utc_A":1659652023,"created_at_utc_B":1659665432,"score_A":9,"score_B":91,"human_ref_A":"\u201cAssigned at birth\u201d refers to gender, not biological sex.","human_ref_B":"The phrase isn't meant to be literal, like a lot of things. The say is at birth because it is at birth that it is officially recorded. Doctors have been wrong before about a babies sex via ultrasounds so there's a pretty good guess in the uterus, but not a confirmed truth. Additionally, this might help you too. Sex of a baby is determined as early as 14 weeks, i.e. 3 months into the pregnancy. Any time before that and the fetus is indistinguishable. The reason being? Up until the two month mark, and here's the fun fact for you, all human embryos are *female*. This applies to all embryos of mammals. At the 2 month mark is where enough androgens are present to counteract the mother's estrogen, thus embryos can then develop male. How it works is that yes, DNA wise all eggs are X chromosomes, sperms can carry X or Y. XX is female, XY is male. The thing is though, up until the two month mark, that Y chromosome isn't active and all embryos develop the same, inherently, as female. Once the Y chromosomes special gene (SRY) is turned on, then production of male reproductive organs begin. But here's another fun fact, 1 in 15,000 genetically born males end up developing and living their lives as women due to genetic mutations affecting the SRY genes. These women will appear as such externally, but internally may have issues. Fee can still give birth, and often these genetic mutations aren't discovered until later in life simply because it is hard to tell the difference. Essentially, a girl at birth could be genetically male, and never know for quite some time. The overall point is, sex is a bit more complicated than thinking you can just attribute the sex of a baby at conception and scientifically speaking, the only sex present at conception is on a genetic level, and that's ultimately female until the Y chromosomes genes are triggered 2 months later, successfully without any mutations later. Sources: https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/4470128\/#:~:text=Geneticists%20have%20discovered%20that%20all,maternal%20estrogens%20and%20maleness%20develops. https:\/\/novonordiskfonden.dk\/en\/news\/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13409.0,"score_ratio":10.1111111111} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"iiz7eet","c_root_id_B":"iiz7km5","created_at_utc_A":1659652023,"created_at_utc_B":1659652095,"score_A":9,"score_B":48,"human_ref_A":"\u201cAssigned at birth\u201d refers to gender, not biological sex.","human_ref_B":"Intersex conditions, you admit exist, but also that they don't change your view? My condition wasn't discovered til my mid 20s, because it comes in the form of an absence of hormones. Many conditions don't show until puberty.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":72.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"iiz95gc","c_root_id_B":"iiz7eet","created_at_utc_A":1659652762,"created_at_utc_B":1659652023,"score_A":23,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Sex assignment is on a person's birth certificate. You are not legally assigned a sex until you are born and your genitals are inspected by a physician or family member. At conception, a human being is a zygote. It has not yet developed sex characteristics and its sex cannot be discerned. Sex can typically be discerned at around 18-21 weeks, but this isn't always accurate. It's not at all rare for someone's sex to be misinterpreted based on an ultrasound.","human_ref_B":"\u201cAssigned at birth\u201d refers to gender, not biological sex.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":739.0,"score_ratio":2.5555555556} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"iizbhl2","c_root_id_B":"ij08rlc","created_at_utc_A":1659653754,"created_at_utc_B":1659668694,"score_A":13,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Biological sex may be *known* as soon as you do certain kinds of testing. But nothing gets \"assigned\" anywhere based on that. It's just something that the prospective parents and their doctor know about. But when you're born, you get formally \"assigned\" a sex as your birth certificate is issued. Nothing biological happens to your sex at birth, but that's when the administrative paperwork happens and something actually gets written down in a formal record. There are other terms that could have been chosen as well that would ultimately mean the same thing, but this one seems to make sense to me.","human_ref_B":"If you're talking about sexual traits at conception, essentially the only things that could matter are genetic traits. But, sexual organ development (testes\/ovaries, internal and external genitalia, skeletal differences, etc) is *complicated*, and subject to all kinds of things that can happen. Assuming everything worked out correctly, then yes, the fertilized egg will have XX or XY sex chromosomes, but the rate of sex chromosome errors is upwards of 1\/1000, and all have at least a certain amount of internal or external sexual organ development issues. In addition, there can be other mutations, e.g. androgen insensitivity, which, in full knockouts, will cause XY fetuses to develop fully female sexual organs. One of the more dramatic\/interesting ones of these is G\u00fcevedoce, where XY babies are born with female-appearing external genitalia, but develop to appear male at puberty. Once you start getting into developmental issues, there's even more that can happen. There are a whole slew of environmental factors that can affect sexual organ development. A relatively brief pulse of something affecting the developmental pathways of sex development at just the right(?) time can push the development of the sexual organs in rather different ways. And, since the external genitalia develop fairly late (compared to testes\/ovaries, at least), an XY infant can have undescended testes, as well as a vulva. It's more common to see intersex, where, for example, the pre-clitoral structures enlarge to form a penis-like structure, but the pre-labia do not fully fuse, leaving the urethra opening below the \"penis\". So, no, we can't assign sex at conception (even if we could inspect the chromosomes + genes). The whole process is way too complicated. Could be worse, though. There are lots of animals where sex traits aren't chromosomal, but wholly environmental -- temperature, food availability after hatching, age (sex changing in older individuals), etc.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14940.0,"score_ratio":1.1538461538} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"ij08rlc","c_root_id_B":"iiz7eet","created_at_utc_A":1659668694,"created_at_utc_B":1659652023,"score_A":15,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"If you're talking about sexual traits at conception, essentially the only things that could matter are genetic traits. But, sexual organ development (testes\/ovaries, internal and external genitalia, skeletal differences, etc) is *complicated*, and subject to all kinds of things that can happen. Assuming everything worked out correctly, then yes, the fertilized egg will have XX or XY sex chromosomes, but the rate of sex chromosome errors is upwards of 1\/1000, and all have at least a certain amount of internal or external sexual organ development issues. In addition, there can be other mutations, e.g. androgen insensitivity, which, in full knockouts, will cause XY fetuses to develop fully female sexual organs. One of the more dramatic\/interesting ones of these is G\u00fcevedoce, where XY babies are born with female-appearing external genitalia, but develop to appear male at puberty. Once you start getting into developmental issues, there's even more that can happen. There are a whole slew of environmental factors that can affect sexual organ development. A relatively brief pulse of something affecting the developmental pathways of sex development at just the right(?) time can push the development of the sexual organs in rather different ways. And, since the external genitalia develop fairly late (compared to testes\/ovaries, at least), an XY infant can have undescended testes, as well as a vulva. It's more common to see intersex, where, for example, the pre-clitoral structures enlarge to form a penis-like structure, but the pre-labia do not fully fuse, leaving the urethra opening below the \"penis\". So, no, we can't assign sex at conception (even if we could inspect the chromosomes + genes). The whole process is way too complicated. Could be worse, though. There are lots of animals where sex traits aren't chromosomal, but wholly environmental -- temperature, food availability after hatching, age (sex changing in older individuals), etc.","human_ref_B":"\u201cAssigned at birth\u201d refers to gender, not biological sex.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16671.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"iiz7eet","c_root_id_B":"iizbhl2","created_at_utc_A":1659652023,"created_at_utc_B":1659653754,"score_A":9,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"\u201cAssigned at birth\u201d refers to gender, not biological sex.","human_ref_B":"Biological sex may be *known* as soon as you do certain kinds of testing. But nothing gets \"assigned\" anywhere based on that. It's just something that the prospective parents and their doctor know about. But when you're born, you get formally \"assigned\" a sex as your birth certificate is issued. Nothing biological happens to your sex at birth, but that's when the administrative paperwork happens and something actually gets written down in a formal record. There are other terms that could have been chosen as well that would ultimately mean the same thing, but this one seems to make sense to me.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1731.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444} {"post_id":"wge4tg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Biological sex is given at conception, and not \"assigned at birth\". To keep this CMV brief, I have noticed that the phrases *assigned male at birth* and *assigned female at birth* is becoming increasingly used online for referring to people who are trans but have certain biology crucial for certain examinations (for example, prostate exams in transgender women). Anywho, outside of intersex conditions, traits of biological sex are present in the fetus in utero. Things like genitals, gonads, and hormones are present prior to birth which makes being \"assigned male at birth\" for me for example kinda missing the point of the fact that these biological traits are present prior to birth. Explain like I'm five years old speak: If I had my penis and testes prior to my birth as a fetus, then my biological sex was given at conception and not \"assigned at birth\".","c_root_id_A":"ij20zwq","c_root_id_B":"iiz7eet","created_at_utc_A":1659708794,"created_at_utc_B":1659652023,"score_A":10,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"\u201cObserved as female at birth\u201d \u201cobserved as male at birth\u201d is probably more accurate. \u201cAssigned\u201d as in \u201cassigned and recorded in our records.\u201d Not \u201cassigned by biology or God or the universe\u201d","human_ref_B":"\u201cAssigned at birth\u201d refers to gender, not biological sex.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":56771.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8icd2","c_root_id_B":"ik8gif5","created_at_utc_A":1660470661,"created_at_utc_B":1660469103,"score_A":20,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"> This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. There is a lot to unpack here, starting with how it's hard to imagine how your argument would change if we were talking about lesbian binary trans women who also often have \"men's bodies\". Your deeper underlying implication here is that of trans-medicalism: The claim that being transgender is only validated by medical diagnosis and treatment, since being a woman, (or a lesbian), or being a man, are biologically essential labels about bodies, more so than societally informed identities. Trans-medicalism might be using a more nuanced version of it than the overt transphobes who would say that manhood and womanhood are determined by chromosomes or whatever. It concedes that at least women who went through enough surgery to look like they have women's bodies, are real women, and vice versa. But it is still an exclsuinary view that doesn't leave much room for personal identity, and instead lets people's gender labeling be dictated by the medical system. Who is and isn't a lesbian shouldn't depend on a doctor's prescription.","human_ref_B":">This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl Then do that. No one was talking about forced dating here, other people being lesbians doesn't mean that you have to date all of them. The transphbia here, is that your post is basically a more niche version of the \"superstraight\" trolling, treating sexual identity as if it would extend to dictating other people's self-labeing. If you aren't personally attracted to fat lesbians, or to lesbians with long blonde hair, or to lesbians with face tattoos, or to lesbians with penises, whatever. That's your deal. You don't have to date *every* lesbian. But if you \"sexually identify as someone who thinks that it's up to you how do you draw the line around 'men end their bodies' and that they should identify as such by your rules\", then really you are just talking about wanting to hold the political power to dictate other people's identity, and justifying it by randomly slapping \"I sexually identify as\" in front of it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1558.0,"score_ratio":1.5384615385} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8fxxv","c_root_id_B":"ik8icd2","created_at_utc_A":1660468639,"created_at_utc_B":1660470661,"score_A":9,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"What's your opinion on afab enbys? Should they be allowed into the lesbian community?","human_ref_B":"> This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. There is a lot to unpack here, starting with how it's hard to imagine how your argument would change if we were talking about lesbian binary trans women who also often have \"men's bodies\". Your deeper underlying implication here is that of trans-medicalism: The claim that being transgender is only validated by medical diagnosis and treatment, since being a woman, (or a lesbian), or being a man, are biologically essential labels about bodies, more so than societally informed identities. Trans-medicalism might be using a more nuanced version of it than the overt transphobes who would say that manhood and womanhood are determined by chromosomes or whatever. It concedes that at least women who went through enough surgery to look like they have women's bodies, are real women, and vice versa. But it is still an exclsuinary view that doesn't leave much room for personal identity, and instead lets people's gender labeling be dictated by the medical system. Who is and isn't a lesbian shouldn't depend on a doctor's prescription.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2022.0,"score_ratio":2.2222222222} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8fjz9","c_root_id_B":"ik8icd2","created_at_utc_A":1660468316,"created_at_utc_B":1660470661,"score_A":6,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"I don't like the \"non-man dating a non-man\" thing. Where does that leave the gays? Are they \"Non-women dating non-women\" or are they men dating men, and thus almost every queer person is lesbian and only a highly specialized subset is gay. If it's the non-women one, then enby loving enbies are lesbian and gay simultaniously. But if it's the other one then an enby who loves a woman is lesbian, but an enby who loves a man is straight. Which sort of flies onto the face of being non-binary, if you're just grouped in with the women... I think it's inclusion to a fault. Lesbians want to support enbies? Cool, make a \"lesbians and enbies\" group. That being said though, I don't agree with you that amab enbies and afab enbies should be treated differently. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in. You don't get to police if somebody is \"feminine enough\" to be a \"good\" or a \"bad\" enby.","human_ref_B":"> This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. There is a lot to unpack here, starting with how it's hard to imagine how your argument would change if we were talking about lesbian binary trans women who also often have \"men's bodies\". Your deeper underlying implication here is that of trans-medicalism: The claim that being transgender is only validated by medical diagnosis and treatment, since being a woman, (or a lesbian), or being a man, are biologically essential labels about bodies, more so than societally informed identities. Trans-medicalism might be using a more nuanced version of it than the overt transphobes who would say that manhood and womanhood are determined by chromosomes or whatever. It concedes that at least women who went through enough surgery to look like they have women's bodies, are real women, and vice versa. But it is still an exclsuinary view that doesn't leave much room for personal identity, and instead lets people's gender labeling be dictated by the medical system. Who is and isn't a lesbian shouldn't depend on a doctor's prescription.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2345.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8ey6j","c_root_id_B":"ik8icd2","created_at_utc_A":1660467803,"created_at_utc_B":1660470661,"score_A":2,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"okay I\u2019m not gonna impose my own opinion But picture yourself in that situation changing your identity to a entirely different gender and in a lot of cases friends and family rejecting you just get rejected by a community that consist of people who are the gender you drastically changed your life to be also I\u2019m not trying to be rude believe what you want","human_ref_B":"> This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. There is a lot to unpack here, starting with how it's hard to imagine how your argument would change if we were talking about lesbian binary trans women who also often have \"men's bodies\". Your deeper underlying implication here is that of trans-medicalism: The claim that being transgender is only validated by medical diagnosis and treatment, since being a woman, (or a lesbian), or being a man, are biologically essential labels about bodies, more so than societally informed identities. Trans-medicalism might be using a more nuanced version of it than the overt transphobes who would say that manhood and womanhood are determined by chromosomes or whatever. It concedes that at least women who went through enough surgery to look like they have women's bodies, are real women, and vice versa. But it is still an exclsuinary view that doesn't leave much room for personal identity, and instead lets people's gender labeling be dictated by the medical system. Who is and isn't a lesbian shouldn't depend on a doctor's prescription.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2858.0,"score_ratio":10.0} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8fxxv","c_root_id_B":"ik8gif5","created_at_utc_A":1660468639,"created_at_utc_B":1660469103,"score_A":9,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"What's your opinion on afab enbys? Should they be allowed into the lesbian community?","human_ref_B":">This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl Then do that. No one was talking about forced dating here, other people being lesbians doesn't mean that you have to date all of them. The transphbia here, is that your post is basically a more niche version of the \"superstraight\" trolling, treating sexual identity as if it would extend to dictating other people's self-labeing. If you aren't personally attracted to fat lesbians, or to lesbians with long blonde hair, or to lesbians with face tattoos, or to lesbians with penises, whatever. That's your deal. You don't have to date *every* lesbian. But if you \"sexually identify as someone who thinks that it's up to you how do you draw the line around 'men end their bodies' and that they should identify as such by your rules\", then really you are just talking about wanting to hold the political power to dictate other people's identity, and justifying it by randomly slapping \"I sexually identify as\" in front of it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":464.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8fjz9","c_root_id_B":"ik8gif5","created_at_utc_A":1660468316,"created_at_utc_B":1660469103,"score_A":6,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I don't like the \"non-man dating a non-man\" thing. Where does that leave the gays? Are they \"Non-women dating non-women\" or are they men dating men, and thus almost every queer person is lesbian and only a highly specialized subset is gay. If it's the non-women one, then enby loving enbies are lesbian and gay simultaniously. But if it's the other one then an enby who loves a woman is lesbian, but an enby who loves a man is straight. Which sort of flies onto the face of being non-binary, if you're just grouped in with the women... I think it's inclusion to a fault. Lesbians want to support enbies? Cool, make a \"lesbians and enbies\" group. That being said though, I don't agree with you that amab enbies and afab enbies should be treated differently. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in. You don't get to police if somebody is \"feminine enough\" to be a \"good\" or a \"bad\" enby.","human_ref_B":">This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl Then do that. No one was talking about forced dating here, other people being lesbians doesn't mean that you have to date all of them. The transphbia here, is that your post is basically a more niche version of the \"superstraight\" trolling, treating sexual identity as if it would extend to dictating other people's self-labeing. If you aren't personally attracted to fat lesbians, or to lesbians with long blonde hair, or to lesbians with face tattoos, or to lesbians with penises, whatever. That's your deal. You don't have to date *every* lesbian. But if you \"sexually identify as someone who thinks that it's up to you how do you draw the line around 'men end their bodies' and that they should identify as such by your rules\", then really you are just talking about wanting to hold the political power to dictate other people's identity, and justifying it by randomly slapping \"I sexually identify as\" in front of it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":787.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8gif5","c_root_id_B":"ik8ey6j","created_at_utc_A":1660469103,"created_at_utc_B":1660467803,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl Then do that. No one was talking about forced dating here, other people being lesbians doesn't mean that you have to date all of them. The transphbia here, is that your post is basically a more niche version of the \"superstraight\" trolling, treating sexual identity as if it would extend to dictating other people's self-labeing. If you aren't personally attracted to fat lesbians, or to lesbians with long blonde hair, or to lesbians with face tattoos, or to lesbians with penises, whatever. That's your deal. You don't have to date *every* lesbian. But if you \"sexually identify as someone who thinks that it's up to you how do you draw the line around 'men end their bodies' and that they should identify as such by your rules\", then really you are just talking about wanting to hold the political power to dictate other people's identity, and justifying it by randomly slapping \"I sexually identify as\" in front of it.","human_ref_B":"okay I\u2019m not gonna impose my own opinion But picture yourself in that situation changing your identity to a entirely different gender and in a lot of cases friends and family rejecting you just get rejected by a community that consist of people who are the gender you drastically changed your life to be also I\u2019m not trying to be rude believe what you want","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1300.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8fxxv","c_root_id_B":"ik8fjz9","created_at_utc_A":1660468639,"created_at_utc_B":1660468316,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"What's your opinion on afab enbys? Should they be allowed into the lesbian community?","human_ref_B":"I don't like the \"non-man dating a non-man\" thing. Where does that leave the gays? Are they \"Non-women dating non-women\" or are they men dating men, and thus almost every queer person is lesbian and only a highly specialized subset is gay. If it's the non-women one, then enby loving enbies are lesbian and gay simultaniously. But if it's the other one then an enby who loves a woman is lesbian, but an enby who loves a man is straight. Which sort of flies onto the face of being non-binary, if you're just grouped in with the women... I think it's inclusion to a fault. Lesbians want to support enbies? Cool, make a \"lesbians and enbies\" group. That being said though, I don't agree with you that amab enbies and afab enbies should be treated differently. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in. You don't get to police if somebody is \"feminine enough\" to be a \"good\" or a \"bad\" enby.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":323.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8fxxv","c_root_id_B":"ik8ey6j","created_at_utc_A":1660468639,"created_at_utc_B":1660467803,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What's your opinion on afab enbys? Should they be allowed into the lesbian community?","human_ref_B":"okay I\u2019m not gonna impose my own opinion But picture yourself in that situation changing your identity to a entirely different gender and in a lot of cases friends and family rejecting you just get rejected by a community that consist of people who are the gender you drastically changed your life to be also I\u2019m not trying to be rude believe what you want","labels":1,"seconds_difference":836.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8ey6j","c_root_id_B":"ik8fjz9","created_at_utc_A":1660467803,"created_at_utc_B":1660468316,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"okay I\u2019m not gonna impose my own opinion But picture yourself in that situation changing your identity to a entirely different gender and in a lot of cases friends and family rejecting you just get rejected by a community that consist of people who are the gender you drastically changed your life to be also I\u2019m not trying to be rude believe what you want","human_ref_B":"I don't like the \"non-man dating a non-man\" thing. Where does that leave the gays? Are they \"Non-women dating non-women\" or are they men dating men, and thus almost every queer person is lesbian and only a highly specialized subset is gay. If it's the non-women one, then enby loving enbies are lesbian and gay simultaniously. But if it's the other one then an enby who loves a woman is lesbian, but an enby who loves a man is straight. Which sort of flies onto the face of being non-binary, if you're just grouped in with the women... I think it's inclusion to a fault. Lesbians want to support enbies? Cool, make a \"lesbians and enbies\" group. That being said though, I don't agree with you that amab enbies and afab enbies should be treated differently. Either you keep them all out, or you let them all in. You don't get to police if somebody is \"feminine enough\" to be a \"good\" or a \"bad\" enby.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":513.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"wo1ktk","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.58,"history":"CMV: nonbinary people born men (especially ones who haven\u2019t undergone any biological changes) shouldn\u2019t be allowed into the lesbian community Amab = assigned Male at birth Enby = non-binary On tiktok a girl said that lesbians should only be girls and it caused an uproar in the comments, people even saying that they\u2019re \u2018amab enby but identify as lesbian\u2019, and some had \u2018he\/they\u2019 pronouns, so don\u2019t identify as a girl in any way. I don\u2019t think this is right. I think being lesbian should be a female only community as it literally means these girls aren\u2019t attracted to men. If a girl says she\u2019s lesbian you would assume she would only want to date other girls (as lesbian implies), so the amab enby wouldn\u2019t be finding a lesbian partner, especially if they\u2019re masculine presenting. This isn\u2019t transphobic, this is their sexuality, men and their bodies aren\u2019t attractive to lesbians. They would probably have to date a straight\/bi girl, in which case it wouldn\u2019t be a lesbian relationship. I know people are saying that the definition of lesbian is a \u2018non-man dating a non-man\u2019, and even arguing that two amab enbys dating can be a lesbian relationship, which is just not right at all. Imagine two men with he\/they pronouns saying \u2018oh this is my bf, he\u2019s in a lesbian relationship with me\u2019. I just don\u2019t see how they should be part of the lesbian community, if it invalidates them to be called straight surely it\u2019s equally as invalidating to be called lesbian? I think if they don\u2019t want to be put into a micro labelled binary as some were saying, they should be unlabelled but just say they\u2019re attracted to women? I also think the lesbian community should be a safe space for women, and amab enbys being allowed in could potentially cause some uncomfortableness among the other people within it","c_root_id_A":"ik8ey6j","c_root_id_B":"ik8l3bh","created_at_utc_A":1660467803,"created_at_utc_B":1660472958,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"okay I\u2019m not gonna impose my own opinion But picture yourself in that situation changing your identity to a entirely different gender and in a lot of cases friends and family rejecting you just get rejected by a community that consist of people who are the gender you drastically changed your life to be also I\u2019m not trying to be rude believe what you want","human_ref_B":"This is absolutely transphobic, contrary to what you insist. Lesbians can look any which way at all. Trans people don't need to have any surgery at all to be their gender and nonbinary people especially are widely more diverse in presentation than you've been indicating. You're insisting non-binary people are their gender assigned at birth, blatantly obviously so by being perfectly fine with non-binary people assigned female at birth, which is in its very essence transphobic (misgendering, refusal to incorporate a person's gender, stereotyping, a clear indication of personal discomfort over fuckall, the insistence that lesbian spaces are less safe if a specific group of non-binary people are in them).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5155.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"4w3wcg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The class of \"tipped employees\" in the US should be abolished - minimum wage should be guaranteed for all. The central problem with the idea of tipped employees in the US is access to justice and fluctuations in tips. The premise behind the idea is to enable employers to pay their service employees less than minimum wage because their wages are made up for by the tips. But there are two huge problems with this * Tips are not guaranteed. Social pressure makes them likely, but not certain * If the employee doesn't get enough tips to technically have made minimum wage, what can they do? Are they going to demand the employer pays the difference? What if the employer says no - what is the employee going to do? Start a class action lawsuit to get their money back? Given the difficulties in accessing justice and the fluctuations, the class of tipped employees isn't fair. People should be paid minimum wage. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d63stca","c_root_id_B":"d63rizq","created_at_utc_A":1470312421,"created_at_utc_B":1470309219,"score_A":256,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I've been a bartender and a server for years. I've also managed couple bars but chose to go back to bartending. Why? Because I missed the tips. Fighting the good fight for people who make way more money than the average person working the same hours seems a bit silly if you look at the numbers. The biggest issue with this is that by saying the tipped class should be abolished, you're effectively taking away one of the easiest industries that people can take as a primary or secondary income and walk out every night with a fairly significant amount of cash in hand that is WAY more than minimum wage. Personally, if I had a choice between minimum wage or even 2x minimum wage and no tips or zero wage and 100% tips I would take 100% tips any day of the week. Go ask 100 people in the industry and you'll probably get 99 that would agree. The 1 person that doesn't agree is probably terrible at math. To summarize, the benefits are as follows: - Cash in hand every night (no waiting 2 weeks for a check) - Significantly more money than minimum wage - Over time, you get paid what you're worth. If you have an asshole boss who might pay you a shit wage, your customers can still put money in your pockets. Effectively you would be fucking over a lot of people by flipping them out of the \"tipping class\" and into a wage based position because no establishment is going to pay a bartender $40 an hour > Tips are not guaranteed. Social pressure makes them likely, but not certain Tips are not guaranteed. That's the beauty of it. Granted, with a sample size of 1 you can get fucked. Over time you'll always make money. If for some reason you're the .001% of servers who don't squeak out minimum wage then you're still guaranteed minimum wage. You would have to be so bad at your job at that point that filing a complaint shouldn't be the objective, it should be considering a new line of work. > If the employee doesn't get enough tips to technically have made minimum wage, what can they do? Are they going to demand the employer pays the difference? What if the employer says no - what is the employee going to do? Start a class action lawsuit to get their money back? This is really simple. An employer will pay them their minimum wage and most likely not keep them as an employee. Not because the establishment is worried about making up the $5 \/ hour difference but because there's bigger issue with the person and they would clearly not be a good fit. The bar and restaurant business is EXTREMELY tough as a business owner. Most of the small businesses have owners that work their asses off and are struggling to pay the bills. By making this change the biggest impact outside of fucking over the servers that make good money and love their job would be fucking over the small businesses that struggle. TGI Fridays and Applebee's would still be ok. THe result would be a lot of big companies running the industry and a bunch of small businesses folding. Regardless of principle, the result would be bad. The current system works. It makes it easier for businesses to keep their doors open and the servers love making the kind of money they make. Why fix something that isn't broke just out of principle?","human_ref_B":"It is guaranteed in the US. If you are working a minimum wage job that has tips and you do not get enough tips to get to the minimum wage mark your boss is required by law to pay you the difference. If they do not you report them to the government via your local labor board and your employer will be forced to pay you, they will be fined for their crime, and they may even be arrested. You can also sue for additional damages via a class action lawsuit if you like.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3202.0,"score_ratio":11.6363636364} {"post_id":"4w3wcg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The class of \"tipped employees\" in the US should be abolished - minimum wage should be guaranteed for all. The central problem with the idea of tipped employees in the US is access to justice and fluctuations in tips. The premise behind the idea is to enable employers to pay their service employees less than minimum wage because their wages are made up for by the tips. But there are two huge problems with this * Tips are not guaranteed. Social pressure makes them likely, but not certain * If the employee doesn't get enough tips to technically have made minimum wage, what can they do? Are they going to demand the employer pays the difference? What if the employer says no - what is the employee going to do? Start a class action lawsuit to get their money back? Given the difficulties in accessing justice and the fluctuations, the class of tipped employees isn't fair. People should be paid minimum wage. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d63s5lh","c_root_id_B":"d63stca","created_at_utc_A":1470310858,"created_at_utc_B":1470312421,"score_A":15,"score_B":256,"human_ref_A":"Servers typically make a lot more money than people think... I ALWAYS made above 10 dollars an hour, and that was in a small rural town. I'm not saying that is the case for everyone but it is the case for every server I've ever met. I made A LOT more money as a server than I do now working full time in a Drs office. So I don't feel bad for servers, I feel bad for people actually making minimum wage.","human_ref_B":"I've been a bartender and a server for years. I've also managed couple bars but chose to go back to bartending. Why? Because I missed the tips. Fighting the good fight for people who make way more money than the average person working the same hours seems a bit silly if you look at the numbers. The biggest issue with this is that by saying the tipped class should be abolished, you're effectively taking away one of the easiest industries that people can take as a primary or secondary income and walk out every night with a fairly significant amount of cash in hand that is WAY more than minimum wage. Personally, if I had a choice between minimum wage or even 2x minimum wage and no tips or zero wage and 100% tips I would take 100% tips any day of the week. Go ask 100 people in the industry and you'll probably get 99 that would agree. The 1 person that doesn't agree is probably terrible at math. To summarize, the benefits are as follows: - Cash in hand every night (no waiting 2 weeks for a check) - Significantly more money than minimum wage - Over time, you get paid what you're worth. If you have an asshole boss who might pay you a shit wage, your customers can still put money in your pockets. Effectively you would be fucking over a lot of people by flipping them out of the \"tipping class\" and into a wage based position because no establishment is going to pay a bartender $40 an hour > Tips are not guaranteed. Social pressure makes them likely, but not certain Tips are not guaranteed. That's the beauty of it. Granted, with a sample size of 1 you can get fucked. Over time you'll always make money. If for some reason you're the .001% of servers who don't squeak out minimum wage then you're still guaranteed minimum wage. You would have to be so bad at your job at that point that filing a complaint shouldn't be the objective, it should be considering a new line of work. > If the employee doesn't get enough tips to technically have made minimum wage, what can they do? Are they going to demand the employer pays the difference? What if the employer says no - what is the employee going to do? Start a class action lawsuit to get their money back? This is really simple. An employer will pay them their minimum wage and most likely not keep them as an employee. Not because the establishment is worried about making up the $5 \/ hour difference but because there's bigger issue with the person and they would clearly not be a good fit. The bar and restaurant business is EXTREMELY tough as a business owner. Most of the small businesses have owners that work their asses off and are struggling to pay the bills. By making this change the biggest impact outside of fucking over the servers that make good money and love their job would be fucking over the small businesses that struggle. TGI Fridays and Applebee's would still be ok. THe result would be a lot of big companies running the industry and a bunch of small businesses folding. Regardless of principle, the result would be bad. The current system works. It makes it easier for businesses to keep their doors open and the servers love making the kind of money they make. Why fix something that isn't broke just out of principle?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1563.0,"score_ratio":17.0666666667} {"post_id":"4w3wcg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The class of \"tipped employees\" in the US should be abolished - minimum wage should be guaranteed for all. The central problem with the idea of tipped employees in the US is access to justice and fluctuations in tips. The premise behind the idea is to enable employers to pay their service employees less than minimum wage because their wages are made up for by the tips. But there are two huge problems with this * Tips are not guaranteed. Social pressure makes them likely, but not certain * If the employee doesn't get enough tips to technically have made minimum wage, what can they do? Are they going to demand the employer pays the difference? What if the employer says no - what is the employee going to do? Start a class action lawsuit to get their money back? Given the difficulties in accessing justice and the fluctuations, the class of tipped employees isn't fair. People should be paid minimum wage. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d63v91h","c_root_id_B":"d63rizq","created_at_utc_A":1470317095,"created_at_utc_B":1470309219,"score_A":53,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":">Are they going to demand the employer pays the difference? Yes, that's how minimum wage laws work in the US. >What if the employer says no Then the employer is in violation of federal law. >what is the employee going to do? Report the employer's violation of federal law and pursue financial restitution.","human_ref_B":"It is guaranteed in the US. If you are working a minimum wage job that has tips and you do not get enough tips to get to the minimum wage mark your boss is required by law to pay you the difference. If they do not you report them to the government via your local labor board and your employer will be forced to pay you, they will be fined for their crime, and they may even be arrested. You can also sue for additional damages via a class action lawsuit if you like.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7876.0,"score_ratio":2.4090909091} {"post_id":"4w3wcg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The class of \"tipped employees\" in the US should be abolished - minimum wage should be guaranteed for all. The central problem with the idea of tipped employees in the US is access to justice and fluctuations in tips. The premise behind the idea is to enable employers to pay their service employees less than minimum wage because their wages are made up for by the tips. But there are two huge problems with this * Tips are not guaranteed. Social pressure makes them likely, but not certain * If the employee doesn't get enough tips to technically have made minimum wage, what can they do? Are they going to demand the employer pays the difference? What if the employer says no - what is the employee going to do? Start a class action lawsuit to get their money back? Given the difficulties in accessing justice and the fluctuations, the class of tipped employees isn't fair. People should be paid minimum wage. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d63s5lh","c_root_id_B":"d63v91h","created_at_utc_A":1470310858,"created_at_utc_B":1470317095,"score_A":15,"score_B":53,"human_ref_A":"Servers typically make a lot more money than people think... I ALWAYS made above 10 dollars an hour, and that was in a small rural town. I'm not saying that is the case for everyone but it is the case for every server I've ever met. I made A LOT more money as a server than I do now working full time in a Drs office. So I don't feel bad for servers, I feel bad for people actually making minimum wage.","human_ref_B":">Are they going to demand the employer pays the difference? Yes, that's how minimum wage laws work in the US. >What if the employer says no Then the employer is in violation of federal law. >what is the employee going to do? Report the employer's violation of federal law and pursue financial restitution.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6237.0,"score_ratio":3.5333333333} {"post_id":"4w3wcg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The class of \"tipped employees\" in the US should be abolished - minimum wage should be guaranteed for all. The central problem with the idea of tipped employees in the US is access to justice and fluctuations in tips. The premise behind the idea is to enable employers to pay their service employees less than minimum wage because their wages are made up for by the tips. But there are two huge problems with this * Tips are not guaranteed. Social pressure makes them likely, but not certain * If the employee doesn't get enough tips to technically have made minimum wage, what can they do? Are they going to demand the employer pays the difference? What if the employer says no - what is the employee going to do? Start a class action lawsuit to get their money back? Given the difficulties in accessing justice and the fluctuations, the class of tipped employees isn't fair. People should be paid minimum wage. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d63v9po","c_root_id_B":"d63s5lh","created_at_utc_A":1470317126,"created_at_utc_B":1470310858,"score_A":21,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Yes, tipping should be abolished. However, waiters\/waitresses would quit in a heartbeat if they were only making minimum. They can make anywhere from $20-50\/hr in some places.","human_ref_B":"Servers typically make a lot more money than people think... I ALWAYS made above 10 dollars an hour, and that was in a small rural town. I'm not saying that is the case for everyone but it is the case for every server I've ever met. I made A LOT more money as a server than I do now working full time in a Drs office. So I don't feel bad for servers, I feel bad for people actually making minimum wage.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6268.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"4w3wcg","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: The class of \"tipped employees\" in the US should be abolished - minimum wage should be guaranteed for all. The central problem with the idea of tipped employees in the US is access to justice and fluctuations in tips. The premise behind the idea is to enable employers to pay their service employees less than minimum wage because their wages are made up for by the tips. But there are two huge problems with this * Tips are not guaranteed. Social pressure makes them likely, but not certain * If the employee doesn't get enough tips to technically have made minimum wage, what can they do? Are they going to demand the employer pays the difference? What if the employer says no - what is the employee going to do? Start a class action lawsuit to get their money back? Given the difficulties in accessing justice and the fluctuations, the class of tipped employees isn't fair. People should be paid minimum wage. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d64b3q7","c_root_id_B":"d63vhh5","created_at_utc_A":1470337449,"created_at_utc_B":1470317476,"score_A":15,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"As someone who has cooked for 10 years. I think tips are bullshit because the people doing most of the work are in the back of house. They should get a portion of the tips. I have worked both sides and servers easily walk with 20+ an hour to do less work and work less hours. It is unfair in my opinion and there should be mandatory tip out. People are going to say, oh well if you don't like it just go serve. Well, that isn't how the world works, people still have to cook your food and the person who gets all the money is the one who took the order and filled your drink and took the food out? That makes no sense and its not like servers are barely getting by. They make bank, if they don't, they are bad with money or work at a bad location\/place that still has to pay them minimum wage anyways. Sorry this is a rant. Bartenders at strict bars only deserve the money they get though.","human_ref_B":"You are right. Tipping should be eliminated. But \"tipped employees\" are against removing tips because they make a shitload of money under the table. You can make hundreds of dollars per week tax free on tips.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19973.0,"score_ratio":1.1538461538} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb1uqpw","c_root_id_B":"cb1ttqa","created_at_utc_A":1373729863,"created_at_utc_B":1373726112,"score_A":22,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I would argue the opposite. As a transgender person, I don't want to have sex with someone who rejects the very core of my identity (that I'm female), who propagates a culture of hatred against me, who could possibly pose a serious threat to me if they found out about my medical history. Instead of forcing trans people to out themselves, revealing personal details about their medical history, exposing themselves to ridicule and shame and putting themselves at risk of violence, why not have people who don't want to have sex with transgender people say that upfront? In the latter case, the person doesn't face nearly as much social shame or as high a risk of violence. Seems like a good solution to me. If anyone doesn't like the idea of having to reveal details about themselves to their sexual partners every time, how do you think transgender people feel?","human_ref_B":"I agree that it would be -smart- and polite to disclose that information in advance, but i disagree that it should be charged as rape. If the transgendered individual has went through transition and is no longer recognizable as their previous gender (genitals and all), than what difference does it really make? Example: If you sleep with somebody who was cured of an STI, why would they need to disclose that, legally? It won't affect you at all. Why should one person be charged for rape because of a part they -used- to have? What if it had been a tumor that had been removed? Or they had a nose job? Would you still feel the same?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3751.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb1ugik","c_root_id_B":"cb1uqpw","created_at_utc_A":1373728791,"created_at_utc_B":1373729863,"score_A":7,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"How would I know that you're not okay with sleeping with a trans person unless you said so? If you asked me directly if I was trans and I said no, then I would be deceiving you. If you asked me if I was a woman and I said yes, that's not deception, especially when the government recognizes me as a woman. It's not rape by deception anymore than not tell him that I'm jewish and he happens to harbor anti-semitic feelings. **I am not responsible for your insecurities. You are. If you don't want to sleep with a trans person, say so.**","human_ref_B":"I would argue the opposite. As a transgender person, I don't want to have sex with someone who rejects the very core of my identity (that I'm female), who propagates a culture of hatred against me, who could possibly pose a serious threat to me if they found out about my medical history. Instead of forcing trans people to out themselves, revealing personal details about their medical history, exposing themselves to ridicule and shame and putting themselves at risk of violence, why not have people who don't want to have sex with transgender people say that upfront? In the latter case, the person doesn't face nearly as much social shame or as high a risk of violence. Seems like a good solution to me. If anyone doesn't like the idea of having to reveal details about themselves to their sexual partners every time, how do you think transgender people feel?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1072.0,"score_ratio":3.1428571429} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb1uqpw","c_root_id_B":"cb1uehy","created_at_utc_A":1373729863,"created_at_utc_B":1373728573,"score_A":22,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I would argue the opposite. As a transgender person, I don't want to have sex with someone who rejects the very core of my identity (that I'm female), who propagates a culture of hatred against me, who could possibly pose a serious threat to me if they found out about my medical history. Instead of forcing trans people to out themselves, revealing personal details about their medical history, exposing themselves to ridicule and shame and putting themselves at risk of violence, why not have people who don't want to have sex with transgender people say that upfront? In the latter case, the person doesn't face nearly as much social shame or as high a risk of violence. Seems like a good solution to me. If anyone doesn't like the idea of having to reveal details about themselves to their sexual partners every time, how do you think transgender people feel?","human_ref_B":">I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. I'm not sure what you even mean by this. You're asking a question about morals. What sort of 'factual answer' can you expect?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1290.0,"score_ratio":3.1428571429} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb22cji","c_root_id_B":"cb1ttqa","created_at_utc_A":1373756199,"created_at_utc_B":1373726112,"score_A":12,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. Is this actually a thing? Because, let's face it, PLENTY of men have straight the fuck up lied to PLENTY of women to have sex with them. The sex, lies notwithstanding, was consensual; however, consent may not have been given without those lies having been told. That's not rape. It's certainly deception, it's manipulation, but telling someone you're a doctor so they have sex with you is not rape. It's just being an asshole. Furthermore, failing to disclose biological sex is not lying. For a post-op trans, their chromosomes don't matter - they ARE their new gender. They always have been - it's just that now their genitals match. Failing to disclose their biological sex is not deception because it's irrelevant. Here's a decent analogy. Let's say you meet a beautiful woman at a bar. You take her home, and have consensual sex with her. The next morning, you find out she's had breast implants. Did she rape you by failing to disclose her pre-op cup size? I think not. I think you think not, too. Realistically here, it's nice for a trans person to come clean about these things prior to sex, but if they don't, it's not criminal.","human_ref_B":"I agree that it would be -smart- and polite to disclose that information in advance, but i disagree that it should be charged as rape. If the transgendered individual has went through transition and is no longer recognizable as their previous gender (genitals and all), than what difference does it really make? Example: If you sleep with somebody who was cured of an STI, why would they need to disclose that, legally? It won't affect you at all. Why should one person be charged for rape because of a part they -used- to have? What if it had been a tumor that had been removed? Or they had a nose job? Would you still feel the same?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30087.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb22cji","c_root_id_B":"cb1ugik","created_at_utc_A":1373756199,"created_at_utc_B":1373728791,"score_A":12,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. Is this actually a thing? Because, let's face it, PLENTY of men have straight the fuck up lied to PLENTY of women to have sex with them. The sex, lies notwithstanding, was consensual; however, consent may not have been given without those lies having been told. That's not rape. It's certainly deception, it's manipulation, but telling someone you're a doctor so they have sex with you is not rape. It's just being an asshole. Furthermore, failing to disclose biological sex is not lying. For a post-op trans, their chromosomes don't matter - they ARE their new gender. They always have been - it's just that now their genitals match. Failing to disclose their biological sex is not deception because it's irrelevant. Here's a decent analogy. Let's say you meet a beautiful woman at a bar. You take her home, and have consensual sex with her. The next morning, you find out she's had breast implants. Did she rape you by failing to disclose her pre-op cup size? I think not. I think you think not, too. Realistically here, it's nice for a trans person to come clean about these things prior to sex, but if they don't, it's not criminal.","human_ref_B":"How would I know that you're not okay with sleeping with a trans person unless you said so? If you asked me directly if I was trans and I said no, then I would be deceiving you. If you asked me if I was a woman and I said yes, that's not deception, especially when the government recognizes me as a woman. It's not rape by deception anymore than not tell him that I'm jewish and he happens to harbor anti-semitic feelings. **I am not responsible for your insecurities. You are. If you don't want to sleep with a trans person, say so.**","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27408.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb1uehy","c_root_id_B":"cb22cji","created_at_utc_A":1373728573,"created_at_utc_B":1373756199,"score_A":7,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":">I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. I'm not sure what you even mean by this. You're asking a question about morals. What sort of 'factual answer' can you expect?","human_ref_B":">To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. Is this actually a thing? Because, let's face it, PLENTY of men have straight the fuck up lied to PLENTY of women to have sex with them. The sex, lies notwithstanding, was consensual; however, consent may not have been given without those lies having been told. That's not rape. It's certainly deception, it's manipulation, but telling someone you're a doctor so they have sex with you is not rape. It's just being an asshole. Furthermore, failing to disclose biological sex is not lying. For a post-op trans, their chromosomes don't matter - they ARE their new gender. They always have been - it's just that now their genitals match. Failing to disclose their biological sex is not deception because it's irrelevant. Here's a decent analogy. Let's say you meet a beautiful woman at a bar. You take her home, and have consensual sex with her. The next morning, you find out she's had breast implants. Did she rape you by failing to disclose her pre-op cup size? I think not. I think you think not, too. Realistically here, it's nice for a trans person to come clean about these things prior to sex, but if they don't, it's not criminal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27626.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb213x0","c_root_id_B":"cb22cji","created_at_utc_A":1373751849,"created_at_utc_B":1373756199,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"No; don't bastardize something as traumatic and violent as rape like new wave feminists do. Tell me, how big of a deception does it have to be to qualify as rape? How many desk monkeys in the military get laid because the slut at the bar thinks she's hooking up with some bad ass war hero? What if I tell a girl I'm nailing I work at NASA when I'm just the janitor there?","human_ref_B":">To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. Is this actually a thing? Because, let's face it, PLENTY of men have straight the fuck up lied to PLENTY of women to have sex with them. The sex, lies notwithstanding, was consensual; however, consent may not have been given without those lies having been told. That's not rape. It's certainly deception, it's manipulation, but telling someone you're a doctor so they have sex with you is not rape. It's just being an asshole. Furthermore, failing to disclose biological sex is not lying. For a post-op trans, their chromosomes don't matter - they ARE their new gender. They always have been - it's just that now their genitals match. Failing to disclose their biological sex is not deception because it's irrelevant. Here's a decent analogy. Let's say you meet a beautiful woman at a bar. You take her home, and have consensual sex with her. The next morning, you find out she's had breast implants. Did she rape you by failing to disclose her pre-op cup size? I think not. I think you think not, too. Realistically here, it's nice for a trans person to come clean about these things prior to sex, but if they don't, it's not criminal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4350.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb1y23w","c_root_id_B":"cb22cji","created_at_utc_A":1373741357,"created_at_utc_B":1373756199,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"There is a difference between WON'T and DON'T. If someone asks the question specifically, and they lie, then that could arguably count as fraud (I disagree, but it's definitely a grey area). If someone never asks the question, then any blame would simply lie with them for not asking.","human_ref_B":">To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. Is this actually a thing? Because, let's face it, PLENTY of men have straight the fuck up lied to PLENTY of women to have sex with them. The sex, lies notwithstanding, was consensual; however, consent may not have been given without those lies having been told. That's not rape. It's certainly deception, it's manipulation, but telling someone you're a doctor so they have sex with you is not rape. It's just being an asshole. Furthermore, failing to disclose biological sex is not lying. For a post-op trans, their chromosomes don't matter - they ARE their new gender. They always have been - it's just that now their genitals match. Failing to disclose their biological sex is not deception because it's irrelevant. Here's a decent analogy. Let's say you meet a beautiful woman at a bar. You take her home, and have consensual sex with her. The next morning, you find out she's had breast implants. Did she rape you by failing to disclose her pre-op cup size? I think not. I think you think not, too. Realistically here, it's nice for a trans person to come clean about these things prior to sex, but if they don't, it's not criminal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14842.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb1y3pv","c_root_id_B":"cb22cji","created_at_utc_A":1373741507,"created_at_utc_B":1373756199,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"can you see that your argument is resting on this cultural evaluation that can clearly shift? It's not a rational argument, it's a 'common sense' argument, which are notoriously shaky.","human_ref_B":">To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. Is this actually a thing? Because, let's face it, PLENTY of men have straight the fuck up lied to PLENTY of women to have sex with them. The sex, lies notwithstanding, was consensual; however, consent may not have been given without those lies having been told. That's not rape. It's certainly deception, it's manipulation, but telling someone you're a doctor so they have sex with you is not rape. It's just being an asshole. Furthermore, failing to disclose biological sex is not lying. For a post-op trans, their chromosomes don't matter - they ARE their new gender. They always have been - it's just that now their genitals match. Failing to disclose their biological sex is not deception because it's irrelevant. Here's a decent analogy. Let's say you meet a beautiful woman at a bar. You take her home, and have consensual sex with her. The next morning, you find out she's had breast implants. Did she rape you by failing to disclose her pre-op cup size? I think not. I think you think not, too. Realistically here, it's nice for a trans person to come clean about these things prior to sex, but if they don't, it's not criminal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14692.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb22cji","c_root_id_B":"cb1z5py","created_at_utc_A":1373756199,"created_at_utc_B":1373745101,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. Is this actually a thing? Because, let's face it, PLENTY of men have straight the fuck up lied to PLENTY of women to have sex with them. The sex, lies notwithstanding, was consensual; however, consent may not have been given without those lies having been told. That's not rape. It's certainly deception, it's manipulation, but telling someone you're a doctor so they have sex with you is not rape. It's just being an asshole. Furthermore, failing to disclose biological sex is not lying. For a post-op trans, their chromosomes don't matter - they ARE their new gender. They always have been - it's just that now their genitals match. Failing to disclose their biological sex is not deception because it's irrelevant. Here's a decent analogy. Let's say you meet a beautiful woman at a bar. You take her home, and have consensual sex with her. The next morning, you find out she's had breast implants. Did she rape you by failing to disclose her pre-op cup size? I think not. I think you think not, too. Realistically here, it's nice for a trans person to come clean about these things prior to sex, but if they don't, it's not criminal.","human_ref_B":"How is there any deception? Guy takes home a woman. Did he ask about her medical history? No? Then there's no deception. Let me ask you a related issue. A girl had a really ugly birth mark on her face. She had it removed when she was young. The guy in question is hardcore religious, and believes that any modification of the body is a crime against God's Plan. He freaks out when he discovers the girl had surgery done to remove the birthmark. Was he raped?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11098.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb1ze4f","c_root_id_B":"cb22cji","created_at_utc_A":1373745898,"created_at_utc_B":1373756199,"score_A":2,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Do you have any cases where rape by deception was enacted (it would help for establishing a common law precedent as I have no clue how severe the fraud has to be). The only one I know of was in Israel and it was based on that the guy was actually Jewish (so not sure if we want that law here). As far as the case goes, the trans person didn't make any claims to have been a biological woman\/man, and might not have even claimed to be a man or woman at all. I believe fraud primarily has to involve the person making some sort of fraudulent claim, whereas this case seems like the person didn't claim anything. If the guy had wanted to know then he should have asked.","human_ref_B":">To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. Is this actually a thing? Because, let's face it, PLENTY of men have straight the fuck up lied to PLENTY of women to have sex with them. The sex, lies notwithstanding, was consensual; however, consent may not have been given without those lies having been told. That's not rape. It's certainly deception, it's manipulation, but telling someone you're a doctor so they have sex with you is not rape. It's just being an asshole. Furthermore, failing to disclose biological sex is not lying. For a post-op trans, their chromosomes don't matter - they ARE their new gender. They always have been - it's just that now their genitals match. Failing to disclose their biological sex is not deception because it's irrelevant. Here's a decent analogy. Let's say you meet a beautiful woman at a bar. You take her home, and have consensual sex with her. The next morning, you find out she's had breast implants. Did she rape you by failing to disclose her pre-op cup size? I think not. I think you think not, too. Realistically here, it's nice for a trans person to come clean about these things prior to sex, but if they don't, it's not criminal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10301.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"1i7ukp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"I think that transgender people who don't disclose to their partners that they weren't always a man\/woman are guilty of rape by deception. CMV To the best of my knowledge, rape by deception is when you get someone who wouldn't consent to have sex with you to have sex with you by lying or misleading them. This is exactly the scenario when a transgender person doesn't disclose their surgery to their partner. I have no statistics (total assumption- just post a study saying this idea is wrong and my view will be changed) but I don't think the majority of people would be okay with sleeping with a transgendered person. And look- I know this is ripe for a social justice warrior to rant about but I'm really looking for a factual answer, rather than a moral answer. The scenario is: Guy takes girl home from a bar, they have sex. Girl used to be a dude, and the guy isn't okay with that. His reaction is common sense enough that by withholding the information, the girl committed rape and should be arrested. He deserved to know and wasn't told. There was a video not too long ago where this scenario happened to an Irish(?) guy and he was yelling at them to get out of his house or something(I can't find it, I'm terrible with Reddit's search function)? So it definitely happens. And I think that person should have been arrested for rape. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cb213x0","c_root_id_B":"cb1ze4f","created_at_utc_A":1373751849,"created_at_utc_B":1373745898,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"No; don't bastardize something as traumatic and violent as rape like new wave feminists do. Tell me, how big of a deception does it have to be to qualify as rape? How many desk monkeys in the military get laid because the slut at the bar thinks she's hooking up with some bad ass war hero? What if I tell a girl I'm nailing I work at NASA when I'm just the janitor there?","human_ref_B":"Do you have any cases where rape by deception was enacted (it would help for establishing a common law precedent as I have no clue how severe the fraud has to be). The only one I know of was in Israel and it was based on that the guy was actually Jewish (so not sure if we want that law here). As far as the case goes, the trans person didn't make any claims to have been a biological woman\/man, and might not have even claimed to be a man or woman at all. I believe fraud primarily has to involve the person making some sort of fraudulent claim, whereas this case seems like the person didn't claim anything. If the guy had wanted to know then he should have asked.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5951.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"heeoeu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The U.S. should have Medicare-For-All Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste as well as drug prices, and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. Drug prices are a difficult topic, as the bills proposed state the HHS Secretary is in charge of negations on drug prices, where results are iffy.","c_root_id_A":"fvqrhcu","c_root_id_B":"fvqqs7q","created_at_utc_A":1592920320,"created_at_utc_B":1592919924,"score_A":33,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> Our healthcare system is extremely expensive Our system is expensive *per capita*. In reality, [5% of patients account for 50% of our health care costs] (https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/health\/archive\/2017\/06\/fixing-the-5-percent\/532077\/), absolutely blowing our numbers out of the water. > and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. \"Underinsured\" generally means not meeting some sort of arbitrary standard. I recently had a high deductible plan with an HSA that I really enjoyed, but would result in my being called \"underinsured\" due to the deductible. > Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste How are you defining \"waste?\" How many billions? Remember, Medicare for All in the rosiest scenario will cost the government close to $3.5 trillion if enacted this year. > as well as drug prices How does government funding of health care payments reduce drug prices, specifically? > and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. Define \"quality care.\" Are you factoring in utilization? If they have financial access but can't get an appointment anymore, is it really accessible? > I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. A wealth tax would require a constitutional amendment, which is an even bigger ask than M4A. Essentially, once you factor current federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, you still need to find about $2 trillion in new revenue in year one. Our current revenues are around $3 trillion before the economic breakdown due to COVID, so you're looking to increase revenues by 40%. The tax implications are troubling. You can't squeeze enough money out of the top earners to cover that gap, so the tax hike would need to be passed along to middle class earners. There is no guarantee that the tax hike they see would be less than what they pay in premiums, and you're further asking them to potentially take a cut in services as well due to possibly lower quality\/accessibility of care. There is also chatter about charging businesses with a higher corporate or business tax. The problems here are many: 1) Not all employees get insurance from their employers. 2) Employees who do get insurance from their employers will see their total compensation decline, as the benefit they were earning is now converted into a tax someone else pays. I work for my employer, not for the government. 3) Many businesses currently do not offer insurance to their employees, and this is an additional cost to them that they cannot afford. The answer here is not Medicare for All. We can't afford it as a nation and we cannot easily implement it if we could. This is not to say we don't need reforms, but M4A is essentially the equivalent of tearing down your house because your kitchen window doesn't close properly. There are reasonable middle-ground reforms we can make to address the actual problems we face in health care as a nation instead of blowing up something that works for most health care consumers.","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s expensive primarily because everybody has health insurance and uses it for *every expense* (among other reasons, of course). Instead: 1. phase out and disallow non-catastrophic coverage for anyone over a certain income (i.e. anyone making over, say, $100k\/year has to pay for most non-catastrophic expenses directly). 2. make it easier to become a doctor, remove as many barriers as possible from starting healthcare centers and hospitals. Those two effects combined will drastically improve healthcare and dramatically decrease prices. If your argument is that people will be hurt from sub-par care, consider that more than 100,000 people die from medical errors in the US each year currently, so removing barriers, increasing competition, and allowing people to be more conscious of who their non-emergency healthcare provider is might actually help in that metric.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":396.0,"score_ratio":16.5} {"post_id":"heeoeu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The U.S. should have Medicare-For-All Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste as well as drug prices, and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. Drug prices are a difficult topic, as the bills proposed state the HHS Secretary is in charge of negations on drug prices, where results are iffy.","c_root_id_A":"fvqqs7q","c_root_id_B":"fvraf01","created_at_utc_A":1592919924,"created_at_utc_B":1592929982,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s expensive primarily because everybody has health insurance and uses it for *every expense* (among other reasons, of course). Instead: 1. phase out and disallow non-catastrophic coverage for anyone over a certain income (i.e. anyone making over, say, $100k\/year has to pay for most non-catastrophic expenses directly). 2. make it easier to become a doctor, remove as many barriers as possible from starting healthcare centers and hospitals. Those two effects combined will drastically improve healthcare and dramatically decrease prices. If your argument is that people will be hurt from sub-par care, consider that more than 100,000 people die from medical errors in the US each year currently, so removing barriers, increasing competition, and allowing people to be more conscious of who their non-emergency healthcare provider is might actually help in that metric.","human_ref_B":"Republicans will not magically disappear once Medicare-for-All passes; if anything, an increase in taxes would boost support for conservative policies among suburban voters, who are the main swing vote in current US politics. Obamacare was one John McCain away from being repealed, and the Trump administration has taken many steps to decrease its efficacy. Likewise, the State department, EPA, and many other agencies are underfunded, understaffed, etc. and it will take years of more friendly administrations to fix the damage that has been done. If there is not significantly more political consensus before M4A is passed, future administrations will do everything in their power to weaken or repeal it. The disruption caused by adopting M4A, and by subsequent administrations' attempts to de-adopt it, would wreak havoc on the medical system in the US.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10058.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"heeoeu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The U.S. should have Medicare-For-All Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste as well as drug prices, and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. Drug prices are a difficult topic, as the bills proposed state the HHS Secretary is in charge of negations on drug prices, where results are iffy.","c_root_id_A":"fvt9v52","c_root_id_B":"fvrif3a","created_at_utc_A":1592967086,"created_at_utc_B":1592933838,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Offices, Doctors, Nurses, Labs, Pharmaceuticals, Surgeons, Specialists, Anesthesiologists, Hospital beds, ER beds, Medical equipment, and so on don\u2019t become any less scarce simply because we price these things through a different mechanism. Right now the market prices them according to what people are willing to pay, because they are paying a lot and many are either over insured or subsidizing coverage of things they don\u2019t want to pay for but there\u2019s no opt out mechanism for paying for them, such as contraceptives. Since insurance pools can pay a lot, Hospitals and Clinics charge a lot. Distorting then size of these pools is that many people pay for insurance through their employer rather than on their own, and so choices on what to get coverage for are limited. Other issues also increase prices. I have to get an albuterol inhaler once a year, so once a year I need to pay for an Office visit or Video call with a Doctor or NP to issue a prescription, literally doubling the cost if I go the call route, but quintupling prior to that option becoming available. If I could just buy it off the shelf, I would save a lot of money, and insurance plans probably wouldn\u2019t bother covering it, but since it is controlled, a Doctor down the street gets a lot of money for sending a fax to the pharmacy. This is an example of government intervention increasing my costs. Every now and then I have get antivirals to treat shingles. Don\u2019t let anyone tell you otherwise, you can get shingles in your teens or twenties and the soonest you can get a vaccine, I think the age has come down, do it if you\u2019ve ever has the chickenpox. Shingles fucking sucks. Out of pocket expenses are still less than going through a Silver plan. Vaccines are cheap, I think I paid $30 for a tetanus shot a few years back. Lab tests are cheap, $200 for a basic STD screening, you should know that if you\u2019re sexually active in the least to protect yourself. You want to know if gluten is bad for you? $119 to find out if bread and ramen is actually ruining your life or you just think it is, just go to a lab instead of your doctor. Looking at the lab page, seems like it\u2019s the same price for a COVID-19 antibody test. Might look into that one myself. Doctors often feel compelled to order a larger quantity of expensive tests than is medically necessary. This is to cover their ass in the case of lawsuits and the lawyers start asking why they only ordered 6 MRIs instead of 7, which seems to be the industry standard. Better liability shields would drive the incentive to order extra tests down. There are a host of ways for governments to drive medical costs down from occupational licensing reform (I would gut occupational licensing but I\u2019m open to hearing why I\u2019m wrong), unscheduling drugs, getting people to pay for their own insurance instead of getting it through an employer, better malpractice liability protection, fee schedule transparency, and dropping coverage mandates. There\u2019s probably more, but that\u2019s just off the top of my head. M4A would not decrease costs though, it would decrease transparency, likely increase costs for a majority of Americans, politicize what is and isn\u2019t covered (should M4A pay for abortions? Somebody will think it should), and all of this to replace the system by which we ration health care. Health care will still be rationed because resources are not unlimited, but it will be rationed by government policy and bureaucracy rather than prices.","human_ref_B":"Your argument makes sense, however it is founded on the premise that the U.S has an infinite pool of money to throw at random social programs. In reality, the only way to pay for this would be to raise taxes on all Americans, it's easy to be generous with other people's money, until you find out everyone has to pay. It's no secret that if we nationalize every business and run it at a loss society would see very real benefits.... until you run out of money.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33248.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"heeoeu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The U.S. should have Medicare-For-All Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste as well as drug prices, and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. Drug prices are a difficult topic, as the bills proposed state the HHS Secretary is in charge of negations on drug prices, where results are iffy.","c_root_id_A":"fvrif3a","c_root_id_B":"fvqqs7q","created_at_utc_A":1592933838,"created_at_utc_B":1592919924,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Your argument makes sense, however it is founded on the premise that the U.S has an infinite pool of money to throw at random social programs. In reality, the only way to pay for this would be to raise taxes on all Americans, it's easy to be generous with other people's money, until you find out everyone has to pay. It's no secret that if we nationalize every business and run it at a loss society would see very real benefits.... until you run out of money.","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s expensive primarily because everybody has health insurance and uses it for *every expense* (among other reasons, of course). Instead: 1. phase out and disallow non-catastrophic coverage for anyone over a certain income (i.e. anyone making over, say, $100k\/year has to pay for most non-catastrophic expenses directly). 2. make it easier to become a doctor, remove as many barriers as possible from starting healthcare centers and hospitals. Those two effects combined will drastically improve healthcare and dramatically decrease prices. If your argument is that people will be hurt from sub-par care, consider that more than 100,000 people die from medical errors in the US each year currently, so removing barriers, increasing competition, and allowing people to be more conscious of who their non-emergency healthcare provider is might actually help in that metric.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13914.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"heeoeu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The U.S. should have Medicare-For-All Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste as well as drug prices, and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. Drug prices are a difficult topic, as the bills proposed state the HHS Secretary is in charge of negations on drug prices, where results are iffy.","c_root_id_A":"fvrzqzh","c_root_id_B":"fvt9v52","created_at_utc_A":1592942229,"created_at_utc_B":1592967086,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Wow an actual civil and thought out conversation between people. Never thought I'd see the day where reddot was civil.","human_ref_B":"Offices, Doctors, Nurses, Labs, Pharmaceuticals, Surgeons, Specialists, Anesthesiologists, Hospital beds, ER beds, Medical equipment, and so on don\u2019t become any less scarce simply because we price these things through a different mechanism. Right now the market prices them according to what people are willing to pay, because they are paying a lot and many are either over insured or subsidizing coverage of things they don\u2019t want to pay for but there\u2019s no opt out mechanism for paying for them, such as contraceptives. Since insurance pools can pay a lot, Hospitals and Clinics charge a lot. Distorting then size of these pools is that many people pay for insurance through their employer rather than on their own, and so choices on what to get coverage for are limited. Other issues also increase prices. I have to get an albuterol inhaler once a year, so once a year I need to pay for an Office visit or Video call with a Doctor or NP to issue a prescription, literally doubling the cost if I go the call route, but quintupling prior to that option becoming available. If I could just buy it off the shelf, I would save a lot of money, and insurance plans probably wouldn\u2019t bother covering it, but since it is controlled, a Doctor down the street gets a lot of money for sending a fax to the pharmacy. This is an example of government intervention increasing my costs. Every now and then I have get antivirals to treat shingles. Don\u2019t let anyone tell you otherwise, you can get shingles in your teens or twenties and the soonest you can get a vaccine, I think the age has come down, do it if you\u2019ve ever has the chickenpox. Shingles fucking sucks. Out of pocket expenses are still less than going through a Silver plan. Vaccines are cheap, I think I paid $30 for a tetanus shot a few years back. Lab tests are cheap, $200 for a basic STD screening, you should know that if you\u2019re sexually active in the least to protect yourself. You want to know if gluten is bad for you? $119 to find out if bread and ramen is actually ruining your life or you just think it is, just go to a lab instead of your doctor. Looking at the lab page, seems like it\u2019s the same price for a COVID-19 antibody test. Might look into that one myself. Doctors often feel compelled to order a larger quantity of expensive tests than is medically necessary. This is to cover their ass in the case of lawsuits and the lawyers start asking why they only ordered 6 MRIs instead of 7, which seems to be the industry standard. Better liability shields would drive the incentive to order extra tests down. There are a host of ways for governments to drive medical costs down from occupational licensing reform (I would gut occupational licensing but I\u2019m open to hearing why I\u2019m wrong), unscheduling drugs, getting people to pay for their own insurance instead of getting it through an employer, better malpractice liability protection, fee schedule transparency, and dropping coverage mandates. There\u2019s probably more, but that\u2019s just off the top of my head. M4A would not decrease costs though, it would decrease transparency, likely increase costs for a majority of Americans, politicize what is and isn\u2019t covered (should M4A pay for abortions? Somebody will think it should), and all of this to replace the system by which we ration health care. Health care will still be rationed because resources are not unlimited, but it will be rationed by government policy and bureaucracy rather than prices.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24857.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"heeoeu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The U.S. should have Medicare-For-All Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste as well as drug prices, and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. Drug prices are a difficult topic, as the bills proposed state the HHS Secretary is in charge of negations on drug prices, where results are iffy.","c_root_id_A":"fvrzqzh","c_root_id_B":"fvqqs7q","created_at_utc_A":1592942229,"created_at_utc_B":1592919924,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Wow an actual civil and thought out conversation between people. Never thought I'd see the day where reddot was civil.","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s expensive primarily because everybody has health insurance and uses it for *every expense* (among other reasons, of course). Instead: 1. phase out and disallow non-catastrophic coverage for anyone over a certain income (i.e. anyone making over, say, $100k\/year has to pay for most non-catastrophic expenses directly). 2. make it easier to become a doctor, remove as many barriers as possible from starting healthcare centers and hospitals. Those two effects combined will drastically improve healthcare and dramatically decrease prices. If your argument is that people will be hurt from sub-par care, consider that more than 100,000 people die from medical errors in the US each year currently, so removing barriers, increasing competition, and allowing people to be more conscious of who their non-emergency healthcare provider is might actually help in that metric.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22305.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"heeoeu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The U.S. should have Medicare-For-All Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste as well as drug prices, and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. Drug prices are a difficult topic, as the bills proposed state the HHS Secretary is in charge of negations on drug prices, where results are iffy.","c_root_id_A":"fvs9e1q","c_root_id_B":"fvt9v52","created_at_utc_A":1592946946,"created_at_utc_B":1592967086,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think it's important to consider the question of *why* health insurance is such a vital necessity in the first place. People will often bring up instance of people being bankrupted by medical costs, and the reason people give for that is because those people didn't have health insurance. Now that's certainly *a* reason for that, but it's also because hospitals are charging so much for treatment in the first place. As an extreme case, there was one instance of a hospital charging hundreds of dollars for a bandage. The fact that many hospitals charge such massively inflated price is the reason why health care is such a vital necessity, and while medicare for all is *a* solution to that, it's also a solution to regulate those hospitals so they won't charge absolutely absurd prices for minor things in the first place.","human_ref_B":"Offices, Doctors, Nurses, Labs, Pharmaceuticals, Surgeons, Specialists, Anesthesiologists, Hospital beds, ER beds, Medical equipment, and so on don\u2019t become any less scarce simply because we price these things through a different mechanism. Right now the market prices them according to what people are willing to pay, because they are paying a lot and many are either over insured or subsidizing coverage of things they don\u2019t want to pay for but there\u2019s no opt out mechanism for paying for them, such as contraceptives. Since insurance pools can pay a lot, Hospitals and Clinics charge a lot. Distorting then size of these pools is that many people pay for insurance through their employer rather than on their own, and so choices on what to get coverage for are limited. Other issues also increase prices. I have to get an albuterol inhaler once a year, so once a year I need to pay for an Office visit or Video call with a Doctor or NP to issue a prescription, literally doubling the cost if I go the call route, but quintupling prior to that option becoming available. If I could just buy it off the shelf, I would save a lot of money, and insurance plans probably wouldn\u2019t bother covering it, but since it is controlled, a Doctor down the street gets a lot of money for sending a fax to the pharmacy. This is an example of government intervention increasing my costs. Every now and then I have get antivirals to treat shingles. Don\u2019t let anyone tell you otherwise, you can get shingles in your teens or twenties and the soonest you can get a vaccine, I think the age has come down, do it if you\u2019ve ever has the chickenpox. Shingles fucking sucks. Out of pocket expenses are still less than going through a Silver plan. Vaccines are cheap, I think I paid $30 for a tetanus shot a few years back. Lab tests are cheap, $200 for a basic STD screening, you should know that if you\u2019re sexually active in the least to protect yourself. You want to know if gluten is bad for you? $119 to find out if bread and ramen is actually ruining your life or you just think it is, just go to a lab instead of your doctor. Looking at the lab page, seems like it\u2019s the same price for a COVID-19 antibody test. Might look into that one myself. Doctors often feel compelled to order a larger quantity of expensive tests than is medically necessary. This is to cover their ass in the case of lawsuits and the lawyers start asking why they only ordered 6 MRIs instead of 7, which seems to be the industry standard. Better liability shields would drive the incentive to order extra tests down. There are a host of ways for governments to drive medical costs down from occupational licensing reform (I would gut occupational licensing but I\u2019m open to hearing why I\u2019m wrong), unscheduling drugs, getting people to pay for their own insurance instead of getting it through an employer, better malpractice liability protection, fee schedule transparency, and dropping coverage mandates. There\u2019s probably more, but that\u2019s just off the top of my head. M4A would not decrease costs though, it would decrease transparency, likely increase costs for a majority of Americans, politicize what is and isn\u2019t covered (should M4A pay for abortions? Somebody will think it should), and all of this to replace the system by which we ration health care. Health care will still be rationed because resources are not unlimited, but it will be rationed by government policy and bureaucracy rather than prices.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20140.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"heeoeu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The U.S. should have Medicare-For-All Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste as well as drug prices, and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. Drug prices are a difficult topic, as the bills proposed state the HHS Secretary is in charge of negations on drug prices, where results are iffy.","c_root_id_A":"fvt9v52","c_root_id_B":"fvqqs7q","created_at_utc_A":1592967086,"created_at_utc_B":1592919924,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Offices, Doctors, Nurses, Labs, Pharmaceuticals, Surgeons, Specialists, Anesthesiologists, Hospital beds, ER beds, Medical equipment, and so on don\u2019t become any less scarce simply because we price these things through a different mechanism. Right now the market prices them according to what people are willing to pay, because they are paying a lot and many are either over insured or subsidizing coverage of things they don\u2019t want to pay for but there\u2019s no opt out mechanism for paying for them, such as contraceptives. Since insurance pools can pay a lot, Hospitals and Clinics charge a lot. Distorting then size of these pools is that many people pay for insurance through their employer rather than on their own, and so choices on what to get coverage for are limited. Other issues also increase prices. I have to get an albuterol inhaler once a year, so once a year I need to pay for an Office visit or Video call with a Doctor or NP to issue a prescription, literally doubling the cost if I go the call route, but quintupling prior to that option becoming available. If I could just buy it off the shelf, I would save a lot of money, and insurance plans probably wouldn\u2019t bother covering it, but since it is controlled, a Doctor down the street gets a lot of money for sending a fax to the pharmacy. This is an example of government intervention increasing my costs. Every now and then I have get antivirals to treat shingles. Don\u2019t let anyone tell you otherwise, you can get shingles in your teens or twenties and the soonest you can get a vaccine, I think the age has come down, do it if you\u2019ve ever has the chickenpox. Shingles fucking sucks. Out of pocket expenses are still less than going through a Silver plan. Vaccines are cheap, I think I paid $30 for a tetanus shot a few years back. Lab tests are cheap, $200 for a basic STD screening, you should know that if you\u2019re sexually active in the least to protect yourself. You want to know if gluten is bad for you? $119 to find out if bread and ramen is actually ruining your life or you just think it is, just go to a lab instead of your doctor. Looking at the lab page, seems like it\u2019s the same price for a COVID-19 antibody test. Might look into that one myself. Doctors often feel compelled to order a larger quantity of expensive tests than is medically necessary. This is to cover their ass in the case of lawsuits and the lawyers start asking why they only ordered 6 MRIs instead of 7, which seems to be the industry standard. Better liability shields would drive the incentive to order extra tests down. There are a host of ways for governments to drive medical costs down from occupational licensing reform (I would gut occupational licensing but I\u2019m open to hearing why I\u2019m wrong), unscheduling drugs, getting people to pay for their own insurance instead of getting it through an employer, better malpractice liability protection, fee schedule transparency, and dropping coverage mandates. There\u2019s probably more, but that\u2019s just off the top of my head. M4A would not decrease costs though, it would decrease transparency, likely increase costs for a majority of Americans, politicize what is and isn\u2019t covered (should M4A pay for abortions? Somebody will think it should), and all of this to replace the system by which we ration health care. Health care will still be rationed because resources are not unlimited, but it will be rationed by government policy and bureaucracy rather than prices.","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s expensive primarily because everybody has health insurance and uses it for *every expense* (among other reasons, of course). Instead: 1. phase out and disallow non-catastrophic coverage for anyone over a certain income (i.e. anyone making over, say, $100k\/year has to pay for most non-catastrophic expenses directly). 2. make it easier to become a doctor, remove as many barriers as possible from starting healthcare centers and hospitals. Those two effects combined will drastically improve healthcare and dramatically decrease prices. If your argument is that people will be hurt from sub-par care, consider that more than 100,000 people die from medical errors in the US each year currently, so removing barriers, increasing competition, and allowing people to be more conscious of who their non-emergency healthcare provider is might actually help in that metric.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":47162.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"heeoeu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The U.S. should have Medicare-For-All Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste as well as drug prices, and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. Drug prices are a difficult topic, as the bills proposed state the HHS Secretary is in charge of negations on drug prices, where results are iffy.","c_root_id_A":"fvs9e1q","c_root_id_B":"fvwdjvj","created_at_utc_A":1592946946,"created_at_utc_B":1593037346,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think it's important to consider the question of *why* health insurance is such a vital necessity in the first place. People will often bring up instance of people being bankrupted by medical costs, and the reason people give for that is because those people didn't have health insurance. Now that's certainly *a* reason for that, but it's also because hospitals are charging so much for treatment in the first place. As an extreme case, there was one instance of a hospital charging hundreds of dollars for a bandage. The fact that many hospitals charge such massively inflated price is the reason why health care is such a vital necessity, and while medicare for all is *a* solution to that, it's also a solution to regulate those hospitals so they won't charge absolutely absurd prices for minor things in the first place.","human_ref_B":"What the heck, I'll take a shot. So, first of all, Medicare as it currently stands is a public-private partnership, with a large and growing chunk actually enrolled in private, generally for-profit plans called Medicare Advantage (https:\/\/www.kff.org\/medicare\/fact-sheet\/medicare-advantage\/). These plans are paid in an essentially capitated system (it's actually a bit more complicated with bids and benchmarks and bonus payments), meaning they get paid a flat amount per patient, which creates an incentive to manage care such that costs or low. Alternatively, a pessimist would say this incentivizes withholding care, but other providers are paid in a capitated manner (e.g. physician groups, public programs like PACE, etc) and it's generally not a big concern. The costs of covering someone in a private Medicare Advantage plan are probably about the same as covering someone in the public Medicare (http:\/\/medpac.gov\/docs\/default-source\/reports\/mar19\\_medpac\\_ch13\\_sec.pdf), although accounting is really complex in this (and in all of healthcare), which is why I say \"probably\". Realistically, anything macroeconomic is probably going to be about directions rather than point estimates or specific numbers--this is especially studies looking at potential costs of M4A: these are estimates based on estimates based on estimates, and pretending that they represent precise numbers is an unfortunate misinterpretation of literature. We should look at the body of literature and consider the direction, but saying \"It will save X because this study said so\" is not really valid, and I don't think any economist would argue with that. Anyway, people often criticize the higher proportion of \"administrative\" spending for Medicare Advantage plans at this point, but that actually misses the big picture--these plans can have advertising, have the big bad administrative costs and highly paid CEOs (as a side note, CEO pay contributes virtually nothing to cost of care and is a red herring in these discussions), and they still are able to care for people at the same or better quality for the same cost as the government-run plan. (https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/29130269\/). As a side note, administrative costs are extremely complex and tend not to be discussed rigorously, at all. I have a lot of beef with that in discussions here and even in the literature. Anything that's not directly providing medical care is generally termed administrative in these analyses, so very beneficial things that should absolutely happen (fraud\/waste detection, population health analytics, etc) can fall into the same category as simple billing activities (which should be done as cheaply as possible). Essentially, with existing literature and analysis, it's really hard to tell how much of differences in administrative costs between public and private plans are \"bad administrative\", versus \"good administrative\". Although, to dispel at a few myths, Medicare administrative costs (again, a poorly defined term, but regardless) are lower than commercial insurance even controlling for patients in Medicare having higher costs (the \"it's about taking percents\" argument is not borne out by the data, and you can refer to the MEDPAC report I cited above if anyone wants to confirm), and the costs are not defrayed by other agencies doing administrative work instead (this is clearly explained in the MEDPAC report as well). Medicare Advantage plans generally have extremely high customer satisfaction (https:\/\/www.mcknights.com\/news\/94-of-beneficiaries-satisfied-with-medicare-advantage-plans\/). Contrary to what most think, they tend to be more generous than the public Medicare (this is sometimes referred to as 'FFS', or Fee-For-Service Medicare). Medicare is not free. Medicare has premiums, albeit low, Medicare has copays and coinsurance, and notably, it does not have an out-of-pocket maximum. This means that if you have an extremely expensive condition, there is no limit to how much you are responsible for. Alternatively, Medicare Advantage plans generally do have these out-of-pocket limits. Their copays and premiums may differ, and they typically limit your access to certain doctors. It's a tradeoff--no free lunches. I recommend some of AARP's resources for more information (https:\/\/www.aarp.org\/health\/medicare-insurance\/info-02-2009\/ask\\_ms\\_\\_medicare\\_18.html). Anyway, Medicare as it stands now, a public-private partnership looks a lot like many European countries. If we were to make Medicare Advantage plans not-for-profit and removed the government plan entirely, we would basically have German system, which people tend to like a lot (https:\/\/www.commonwealthfund.org\/international-health-policy-center\/countries\/germany). I'm oversimplifying, but not that much. I contend that we could significantly increase access by making Medicare Advantage plans available to everyone and eliminating traditional insurance--essentially, you pay taxes that go to the government, and the government then passes those dollars along to private plans based on the number of patients they have (again, this is a capitated system, and is what happens in Germany). Everyone has access because it's still a tax-based system that everyone is eligible for, but it's a compromise that will not cause nearly the same amount of disruption as eliminating private insurance, which as others have noted will be extremely difficult to pass. It also has the benefit of decentralizing decision-making to some extent. If anyone is still arguing that HHS and the federal government should have full power over health care decisions about, say, what procedures are covered (and this would be, expressly, the government's decision under M4A), I would point you to the current administration's recent stripping of transgendered protections in healthcare (in case you've missed the last four years of systematic undermining of access to care) to a free preview of what future administrations may hold when the power they are given over the system is drastically increased.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":90400.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"heeoeu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: The U.S. should have Medicare-For-All Our healthcare system is extremely expensive and thus over 40% of Americans are uninsured\/underinsured. Under M4A, billions would be saved through administrative waste as well as drug prices, and 100% of U.S. residents would have access to quality care. I\u2019m specifically looking at recent proposals such as the ones written by Rep. Jayapal and Sen. Sanders, which could be funded by a variety of methods such as a wealth tax or income tax, or a combination or methods. Drug prices are a difficult topic, as the bills proposed state the HHS Secretary is in charge of negations on drug prices, where results are iffy.","c_root_id_A":"fvqqs7q","c_root_id_B":"fvwdjvj","created_at_utc_A":1592919924,"created_at_utc_B":1593037346,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s expensive primarily because everybody has health insurance and uses it for *every expense* (among other reasons, of course). Instead: 1. phase out and disallow non-catastrophic coverage for anyone over a certain income (i.e. anyone making over, say, $100k\/year has to pay for most non-catastrophic expenses directly). 2. make it easier to become a doctor, remove as many barriers as possible from starting healthcare centers and hospitals. Those two effects combined will drastically improve healthcare and dramatically decrease prices. If your argument is that people will be hurt from sub-par care, consider that more than 100,000 people die from medical errors in the US each year currently, so removing barriers, increasing competition, and allowing people to be more conscious of who their non-emergency healthcare provider is might actually help in that metric.","human_ref_B":"What the heck, I'll take a shot. So, first of all, Medicare as it currently stands is a public-private partnership, with a large and growing chunk actually enrolled in private, generally for-profit plans called Medicare Advantage (https:\/\/www.kff.org\/medicare\/fact-sheet\/medicare-advantage\/). These plans are paid in an essentially capitated system (it's actually a bit more complicated with bids and benchmarks and bonus payments), meaning they get paid a flat amount per patient, which creates an incentive to manage care such that costs or low. Alternatively, a pessimist would say this incentivizes withholding care, but other providers are paid in a capitated manner (e.g. physician groups, public programs like PACE, etc) and it's generally not a big concern. The costs of covering someone in a private Medicare Advantage plan are probably about the same as covering someone in the public Medicare (http:\/\/medpac.gov\/docs\/default-source\/reports\/mar19\\_medpac\\_ch13\\_sec.pdf), although accounting is really complex in this (and in all of healthcare), which is why I say \"probably\". Realistically, anything macroeconomic is probably going to be about directions rather than point estimates or specific numbers--this is especially studies looking at potential costs of M4A: these are estimates based on estimates based on estimates, and pretending that they represent precise numbers is an unfortunate misinterpretation of literature. We should look at the body of literature and consider the direction, but saying \"It will save X because this study said so\" is not really valid, and I don't think any economist would argue with that. Anyway, people often criticize the higher proportion of \"administrative\" spending for Medicare Advantage plans at this point, but that actually misses the big picture--these plans can have advertising, have the big bad administrative costs and highly paid CEOs (as a side note, CEO pay contributes virtually nothing to cost of care and is a red herring in these discussions), and they still are able to care for people at the same or better quality for the same cost as the government-run plan. (https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/29130269\/). As a side note, administrative costs are extremely complex and tend not to be discussed rigorously, at all. I have a lot of beef with that in discussions here and even in the literature. Anything that's not directly providing medical care is generally termed administrative in these analyses, so very beneficial things that should absolutely happen (fraud\/waste detection, population health analytics, etc) can fall into the same category as simple billing activities (which should be done as cheaply as possible). Essentially, with existing literature and analysis, it's really hard to tell how much of differences in administrative costs between public and private plans are \"bad administrative\", versus \"good administrative\". Although, to dispel at a few myths, Medicare administrative costs (again, a poorly defined term, but regardless) are lower than commercial insurance even controlling for patients in Medicare having higher costs (the \"it's about taking percents\" argument is not borne out by the data, and you can refer to the MEDPAC report I cited above if anyone wants to confirm), and the costs are not defrayed by other agencies doing administrative work instead (this is clearly explained in the MEDPAC report as well). Medicare Advantage plans generally have extremely high customer satisfaction (https:\/\/www.mcknights.com\/news\/94-of-beneficiaries-satisfied-with-medicare-advantage-plans\/). Contrary to what most think, they tend to be more generous than the public Medicare (this is sometimes referred to as 'FFS', or Fee-For-Service Medicare). Medicare is not free. Medicare has premiums, albeit low, Medicare has copays and coinsurance, and notably, it does not have an out-of-pocket maximum. This means that if you have an extremely expensive condition, there is no limit to how much you are responsible for. Alternatively, Medicare Advantage plans generally do have these out-of-pocket limits. Their copays and premiums may differ, and they typically limit your access to certain doctors. It's a tradeoff--no free lunches. I recommend some of AARP's resources for more information (https:\/\/www.aarp.org\/health\/medicare-insurance\/info-02-2009\/ask\\_ms\\_\\_medicare\\_18.html). Anyway, Medicare as it stands now, a public-private partnership looks a lot like many European countries. If we were to make Medicare Advantage plans not-for-profit and removed the government plan entirely, we would basically have German system, which people tend to like a lot (https:\/\/www.commonwealthfund.org\/international-health-policy-center\/countries\/germany). I'm oversimplifying, but not that much. I contend that we could significantly increase access by making Medicare Advantage plans available to everyone and eliminating traditional insurance--essentially, you pay taxes that go to the government, and the government then passes those dollars along to private plans based on the number of patients they have (again, this is a capitated system, and is what happens in Germany). Everyone has access because it's still a tax-based system that everyone is eligible for, but it's a compromise that will not cause nearly the same amount of disruption as eliminating private insurance, which as others have noted will be extremely difficult to pass. It also has the benefit of decentralizing decision-making to some extent. If anyone is still arguing that HHS and the federal government should have full power over health care decisions about, say, what procedures are covered (and this would be, expressly, the government's decision under M4A), I would point you to the current administration's recent stripping of transgendered protections in healthcare (in case you've missed the last four years of systematic undermining of access to care) to a free preview of what future administrations may hold when the power they are given over the system is drastically increased.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":117422.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"wxjo50","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: peeing in the shower is a good thing and not gross so i am a firm believer in peeing in the shower. i cant see a reason to get out of the shower, pee in the toilet and then use water flushing it. **premise and clarification:** so when i say \"peeing in the shower\" it assumes the following, you are already in the shower for the purpose of having a shower, or just about to. you pee while the water is running. choosing to *not* pee in the shower means you are having a shower, you get out to pee in the toilet and then flush. **why its a good thing:** you dont spend the water flushing the toilet, and you dont spend extra time\/inconvinence getting out the shower to pee in the toilet. i'll admit the convinence point is a bit more subjective **why it isn't gross**: I dont really believe it is \"gross\" or unsanitary. the water is running over you, any pee you get on yourself (i guess that would apply to you more if you have a vagina) is immedietly washed away and flushed through your plumbing. **why i want my view changed and what would change it:** I'll say that more people are \"shower pee\" supporters than not, that being said there are a sizeable amount of people that simply view it as gross or unsanitary. i'll consider my view changed if i can see a convincing argument that it is gross that i cant already see, or some other \"disadvantage\" to peeing in the shower that means its better to get out and go in the toilet.","c_root_id_A":"ilr9xw3","c_root_id_B":"ilri9qa","created_at_utc_A":1661447443,"created_at_utc_B":1661450608,"score_A":15,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"It\u2019s gross if it splashes somewhere in the shower where it doesn\u2019t get completely washed down the drain, so you end up having stale piss stinking up your bathroom and shower.","human_ref_B":"The reason to not pee in the shower is that it creates or strongly reinforces the need to pee when you hear running water. This can lead later in life to bladder control issues where you respond to running water and not-in-the-shower and have to pee more than people who detach from the instinctual water-running-makes-me-pee. The research on this is from Dr. Alicia Jeffrey-Thomas. So...when you're older and have some leaking problems already, those will be on-command-leaks whenever someone runs water, or just more frequent needs to make it to the bathroom because it won't just be the internal pressure urges that cause the need, but the pavlovian response you've trained yourself for over the life of peeing in the shower. So...not better to get out and go to the toilet. Better to not pee in association with showering. You're already \"pavloved\" if you think the only alternative is to get out from the shower to pee.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3165.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667} {"post_id":"wxjo50","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: peeing in the shower is a good thing and not gross so i am a firm believer in peeing in the shower. i cant see a reason to get out of the shower, pee in the toilet and then use water flushing it. **premise and clarification:** so when i say \"peeing in the shower\" it assumes the following, you are already in the shower for the purpose of having a shower, or just about to. you pee while the water is running. choosing to *not* pee in the shower means you are having a shower, you get out to pee in the toilet and then flush. **why its a good thing:** you dont spend the water flushing the toilet, and you dont spend extra time\/inconvinence getting out the shower to pee in the toilet. i'll admit the convinence point is a bit more subjective **why it isn't gross**: I dont really believe it is \"gross\" or unsanitary. the water is running over you, any pee you get on yourself (i guess that would apply to you more if you have a vagina) is immedietly washed away and flushed through your plumbing. **why i want my view changed and what would change it:** I'll say that more people are \"shower pee\" supporters than not, that being said there are a sizeable amount of people that simply view it as gross or unsanitary. i'll consider my view changed if i can see a convincing argument that it is gross that i cant already see, or some other \"disadvantage\" to peeing in the shower that means its better to get out and go in the toilet.","c_root_id_A":"ilrbcuu","c_root_id_B":"ilri9qa","created_at_utc_A":1661447975,"created_at_utc_B":1661450608,"score_A":9,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Private shower, do as you will. Public shower, keep it in the tank.","human_ref_B":"The reason to not pee in the shower is that it creates or strongly reinforces the need to pee when you hear running water. This can lead later in life to bladder control issues where you respond to running water and not-in-the-shower and have to pee more than people who detach from the instinctual water-running-makes-me-pee. The research on this is from Dr. Alicia Jeffrey-Thomas. So...when you're older and have some leaking problems already, those will be on-command-leaks whenever someone runs water, or just more frequent needs to make it to the bathroom because it won't just be the internal pressure urges that cause the need, but the pavlovian response you've trained yourself for over the life of peeing in the shower. So...not better to get out and go to the toilet. Better to not pee in association with showering. You're already \"pavloved\" if you think the only alternative is to get out from the shower to pee.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2633.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778} {"post_id":"arbh05","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Sexual health classes should be required as part of the comprehensive curriculum in all public schools in the United States Providing youth with sexual health education is critical in informing their future decisions to engage in safe sex practices\/behavior and improving their overall health outcomes. Providing safe sex education provides students with the knowledge of the health risks associated with engaging in unsafe sex behavior and the associated health outcomes such as STIs and unplanned pregnancy. It gives them the knowledge on how to make smart and informed decisions regarding their health, whether they choose to engage or abstain from sex. This education provides them with tools to protect themselves and make smart decisions for their health. This education can also promote more open communication between students, their parents and health care providers. Students may feel more encouraged to ask questions. This communication can help decrease confusion and misinformation that students may be exposed to in the media or online. In addition, having an open chain of communications on the topic of sex and sexual health may help eliminate the stigma associated with it. If more people are aware of the risks associated with unsafe sex behavior, they may be better informed to either engage in safe sex behavior or abstain. These behaviors can decrease rates of STIs, unplanned pregnancies and the associated health care costs.","c_root_id_A":"egm6a6z","c_root_id_B":"egm69gd","created_at_utc_A":1550346640,"created_at_utc_B":1550346623,"score_A":58,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I agree with the basic premise of your argument, but with one caveat: how would it be possible to enforce this? We give states absolutely gigantic leeway when it comes to setting educational standards. If it's required on a federal level, it will also have to be funded, or states will push back. And funding for comprehensive sex ed seems unlikely given the current political climate. So sure, in an ideal world it should be included. But we're living in the real world, where it may not be feasible. Of course, this assumes you mean to institute this in the US, and not another country.","human_ref_B":"So what are we removing to make room for this?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17.0,"score_ratio":4.8333333333} {"post_id":"arbh05","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Sexual health classes should be required as part of the comprehensive curriculum in all public schools in the United States Providing youth with sexual health education is critical in informing their future decisions to engage in safe sex practices\/behavior and improving their overall health outcomes. Providing safe sex education provides students with the knowledge of the health risks associated with engaging in unsafe sex behavior and the associated health outcomes such as STIs and unplanned pregnancy. It gives them the knowledge on how to make smart and informed decisions regarding their health, whether they choose to engage or abstain from sex. This education provides them with tools to protect themselves and make smart decisions for their health. This education can also promote more open communication between students, their parents and health care providers. Students may feel more encouraged to ask questions. This communication can help decrease confusion and misinformation that students may be exposed to in the media or online. In addition, having an open chain of communications on the topic of sex and sexual health may help eliminate the stigma associated with it. If more people are aware of the risks associated with unsafe sex behavior, they may be better informed to either engage in safe sex behavior or abstain. These behaviors can decrease rates of STIs, unplanned pregnancies and the associated health care costs.","c_root_id_A":"egnam9m","c_root_id_B":"egn4t05","created_at_utc_A":1550382805,"created_at_utc_B":1550376613,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I would argue that this is not a schools responsiblity and then further argue that you don't have the right to tax people to fund this","human_ref_B":"Sexual Health is already included under Health which is already legally mandated to be included in all public school curriculums. They talk about periods, puberty, STD's, pregnancy and condom usage. There's literally nothing else that needs to be taught. There's only so much that can even be taught on these subjects, not really enough to span several months. And frankly a lot of this shit should be on the parents to educate their kids since it's a very intimate and sensitive topic. Teaching a bunch of teenagers in a public school setting about their privates is pretty awkward and guaranteed to provoke immature reactions, dick jokes, and more. I'd rather talk to my child about their sex organs than have some public school teacher do it anyway.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6192.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"6iqp8n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Juliet should've just went to Romeo's parents and told them they were married, which would've yielded better results that her convoluted fake death scheme After reading the plays and watching the movies, this is the only thing to me that would've made sense. She went to Friar Lawrence who for some reason suggested she fake kill herself. I believe that the Montague's were reasonable people and would've taken her in, or at least smuggled her out to go with Romeo. After all she was his wife and the marriage was consummated. I think that would've led to a better end than the whole poison thing.","c_root_id_A":"dj8gc5k","c_root_id_B":"dj8dwgj","created_at_utc_A":1498105140,"created_at_utc_B":1498101525,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Arranged marriages were the norm in England until the 18th century. They were the norm in the United States and Russia until the mid 20th century. They are the norm in India, Pakistan, and many other countries today. Romeo and Juliet was published in the 1500s, over a century before the English started to consider the concept of marrying for love. It took place in the 1300s, even further before that concept existed. Marrying for love was a ridiculous concept. Now add on the fact that these families absolutely hated each other. The entire story took place over four days. Can you imagine forgiving someone who murdered your family member less than a week after it happens? From Romeo and Juliet's point of view, it makes sense to assume that their families would never allowed them to be together. Faking your own death was a solid way to sidestep the problem. And if you find out the only person you love in the whole world is dead and there is no hope for the future, it makes sense to kill yourself right then and there. People always make fun of this story because it seems like such a stupid set of actions, but I think each step made sense given what information each character had at the time. The dramatic irony is that the audience knows stuff the characters don't at each step of the story. We know the parents would turn out to be ok with it. We know that it was a fake death and not real. We also know that life gets better even if your love dies, and that there is no reason to commit suicide. There were a dozen times where small changes could have stopped the whole sequence of events. But the characters didn't know that. They did the best they could with what information they had. And that's why it's a good play.","human_ref_B":"I don't care for Romeo and Juliet, so I'm not one to say what would have been best, but I'm pretty sure this was intentional. It's a tragedy, which is a genre in which the hero's actions lead to his own downfall. Romeo could likely have ended the feud by publicly proposing to Juliet. It would have been a good ending for everyone except Romeo and Juliet, whose relationship would end as quickly as Romeo's feelings for that girl he liked before Juliet. But Romeo, Juliet, and Friar Lawrence were all too romantic to do that, and they went for some convoluted scheme that got them all killed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3615.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"6iqp8n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Juliet should've just went to Romeo's parents and told them they were married, which would've yielded better results that her convoluted fake death scheme After reading the plays and watching the movies, this is the only thing to me that would've made sense. She went to Friar Lawrence who for some reason suggested she fake kill herself. I believe that the Montague's were reasonable people and would've taken her in, or at least smuggled her out to go with Romeo. After all she was his wife and the marriage was consummated. I think that would've led to a better end than the whole poison thing.","c_root_id_A":"dj8gc5k","c_root_id_B":"dj8dujp","created_at_utc_A":1498105140,"created_at_utc_B":1498101450,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Arranged marriages were the norm in England until the 18th century. They were the norm in the United States and Russia until the mid 20th century. They are the norm in India, Pakistan, and many other countries today. Romeo and Juliet was published in the 1500s, over a century before the English started to consider the concept of marrying for love. It took place in the 1300s, even further before that concept existed. Marrying for love was a ridiculous concept. Now add on the fact that these families absolutely hated each other. The entire story took place over four days. Can you imagine forgiving someone who murdered your family member less than a week after it happens? From Romeo and Juliet's point of view, it makes sense to assume that their families would never allowed them to be together. Faking your own death was a solid way to sidestep the problem. And if you find out the only person you love in the whole world is dead and there is no hope for the future, it makes sense to kill yourself right then and there. People always make fun of this story because it seems like such a stupid set of actions, but I think each step made sense given what information each character had at the time. The dramatic irony is that the audience knows stuff the characters don't at each step of the story. We know the parents would turn out to be ok with it. We know that it was a fake death and not real. We also know that life gets better even if your love dies, and that there is no reason to commit suicide. There were a dozen times where small changes could have stopped the whole sequence of events. But the characters didn't know that. They did the best they could with what information they had. And that's why it's a good play.","human_ref_B":"The only two arguments I can fathom are: 1. Because all of the characters are fictional, what they \"should\" do is simply whatever makes for the best story. 2. Hose rivalries back then could often involve people killing each other. I *think* I remember that somebody of one of the families was killed by the other's either during the play or shortly before it. The family's hatred of each other was still fresh. Plus, Romeo and Juliet are 16 and 13, they're young, and have grown up hearing their parents talk about how much they hate the other family. Even *if* the families could have been convinced, teenagers generally believe they'll have better success trying to get *around* their parents, rather than trying to reason with them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3690.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"6iqp8n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Juliet should've just went to Romeo's parents and told them they were married, which would've yielded better results that her convoluted fake death scheme After reading the plays and watching the movies, this is the only thing to me that would've made sense. She went to Friar Lawrence who for some reason suggested she fake kill herself. I believe that the Montague's were reasonable people and would've taken her in, or at least smuggled her out to go with Romeo. After all she was his wife and the marriage was consummated. I think that would've led to a better end than the whole poison thing.","c_root_id_A":"dj8gc5k","c_root_id_B":"dj8fwfo","created_at_utc_A":1498105140,"created_at_utc_B":1498104448,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Arranged marriages were the norm in England until the 18th century. They were the norm in the United States and Russia until the mid 20th century. They are the norm in India, Pakistan, and many other countries today. Romeo and Juliet was published in the 1500s, over a century before the English started to consider the concept of marrying for love. It took place in the 1300s, even further before that concept existed. Marrying for love was a ridiculous concept. Now add on the fact that these families absolutely hated each other. The entire story took place over four days. Can you imagine forgiving someone who murdered your family member less than a week after it happens? From Romeo and Juliet's point of view, it makes sense to assume that their families would never allowed them to be together. Faking your own death was a solid way to sidestep the problem. And if you find out the only person you love in the whole world is dead and there is no hope for the future, it makes sense to kill yourself right then and there. People always make fun of this story because it seems like such a stupid set of actions, but I think each step made sense given what information each character had at the time. The dramatic irony is that the audience knows stuff the characters don't at each step of the story. We know the parents would turn out to be ok with it. We know that it was a fake death and not real. We also know that life gets better even if your love dies, and that there is no reason to commit suicide. There were a dozen times where small changes could have stopped the whole sequence of events. But the characters didn't know that. They did the best they could with what information they had. And that's why it's a good play.","human_ref_B":"There's evidence the author meant for it to be a dark comedy of errors, where the point is \"teenagers in love are idiots. Look how many people they got killed.\" You'll find a similar theme in other Shakespearean plays. Take Much Ado About Nothing. Beatrice and Benedick are the adults who've known each other before the play starts. They fight and argue. But they both end up declaring an undying love for each other, which they openly state they're willing to kill for. But then, like adults, they listen to their friends and one another and no one has to die. Meanwhile, Hero and Claudio, the young ones, fall in love after meeting one time, and their love is so shallow Claudio denounces Hero at the slightest evidence she might be unfaithful. His dumbassery causes the \"much ado about nothing\" which almost gets him killed. Similarly shallow relationship for the young couple in taming of the shrew. So it's not too much of a stretch to think Shakespeare's whole point with Romeo and Juliet was \"young people are too dumb to love well.\" Their death was the whole punchline.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":692.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"6iqp8n","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Juliet should've just went to Romeo's parents and told them they were married, which would've yielded better results that her convoluted fake death scheme After reading the plays and watching the movies, this is the only thing to me that would've made sense. She went to Friar Lawrence who for some reason suggested she fake kill herself. I believe that the Montague's were reasonable people and would've taken her in, or at least smuggled her out to go with Romeo. After all she was his wife and the marriage was consummated. I think that would've led to a better end than the whole poison thing.","c_root_id_A":"dj8dwgj","c_root_id_B":"dj8dujp","created_at_utc_A":1498101525,"created_at_utc_B":1498101450,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I don't care for Romeo and Juliet, so I'm not one to say what would have been best, but I'm pretty sure this was intentional. It's a tragedy, which is a genre in which the hero's actions lead to his own downfall. Romeo could likely have ended the feud by publicly proposing to Juliet. It would have been a good ending for everyone except Romeo and Juliet, whose relationship would end as quickly as Romeo's feelings for that girl he liked before Juliet. But Romeo, Juliet, and Friar Lawrence were all too romantic to do that, and they went for some convoluted scheme that got them all killed.","human_ref_B":"The only two arguments I can fathom are: 1. Because all of the characters are fictional, what they \"should\" do is simply whatever makes for the best story. 2. Hose rivalries back then could often involve people killing each other. I *think* I remember that somebody of one of the families was killed by the other's either during the play or shortly before it. The family's hatred of each other was still fresh. Plus, Romeo and Juliet are 16 and 13, they're young, and have grown up hearing their parents talk about how much they hate the other family. Even *if* the families could have been convinced, teenagers generally believe they'll have better success trying to get *around* their parents, rather than trying to reason with them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":75.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h95yc6v","c_root_id_B":"h9629q5","created_at_utc_A":1629126490,"created_at_utc_B":1629128078,"score_A":2,"score_B":38,"human_ref_A":">Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. I agree with your whole post in general, I would just caution the LCOE makes several assumptions that make nuclear seem significantly worse than other clean energy sources. Your renewable prices don't include energy storage, right? So renewables are probably more in $50-100\/MWh including different forms of energy storage. And I believe the nuclear LCOE is based on a 40-year lifetime, while virtually every plant in the US still operating is either licensed to 60-80 years, and those that aren't are putting in their license renewals shortly. While nuclear is still more expensive than other forms of energy, it's not AS bas as Lazard says, especially if you want to put a price on carbon and account for energy-on-demand.","human_ref_B":"I doubt I\u2019ll be able to change your view but I\u2019ll give it a shot. Wind, Solar, and other forms of renewable energy are cheaper but have availability problems. Solar doesn\u2019t work during the night and wind doesn\u2019t work when it\u2019s still. Their output also fluctuates depending on several other factors. Part of the reason non-carbon-neutral power is still in existence is because of the gap that needs to be filled in energy production when the above are underperforming or unavailable. And while I\u2019m sure none of that is new to you there is no existing technology other than nuclear fission that both produces enough power to fill the gap and is basically carbon neutral. So I would argue that Nuclear is not an option it\u2019s the only option. I think everything you have mentioned is indeed an accurate problem. NIMBYism is problematic, construction time is problematic, and the declining workforce is problematic\u2026 But I believe the NEED is unquestionable and when there is this desperate of a need there is a lot that can be done to address the above. I suspect that may be a little too blind-faith \/ \u201cif there\u2019s a will there\u2019s a way\u201d for you but I really do think we can and will come together on this.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1588.0,"score_ratio":19.0} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h965g30","c_root_id_B":"h96f9oi","created_at_utc_A":1629129338,"created_at_utc_B":1629133138,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":">Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants The comparison here is faulty. Nuclear creates a constant flow of energy regardless of the time of day, location, or weather. This is a huge distinction for 2 reasons. First being the cost you gave for solar and wind would need to also account for a massive storage system in order to power everything not only each night but when the extra days sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. On top of this storage system you would need massive amounts of surplus wind turbines and solar panels to charge this storage system. Basically you've compared a system that can support the entire grid to a system that might supplement the grid during a few hours a day. To make a more realistic cost comparison you must account for these differences. Second, The cost comparison for what a solar panel might create in Arizona will be significantly different that what is made is a darker, rainier, winter experiencing state like Washington. Second to that, these areas would require even more storage, massive amounts more. If you grew up in the northern US you might know that during the winter you might go multiple days without real sunshine. And in the cold panels are less efficient. Throughout this period these regions are consuming far more power than normal to heat their homes. I think you are off on the reason of cost. >There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. The good reason would be to have grid level energy production that doesn't emit fossil fuels that can be installed in any region of the U.S. that has a supply of water.","human_ref_B":"Unfortunately you are largely correct. For this arbitrary time-frame nuclear will be slow to the party, mostly because of investor caution, the overwhelming misinformation over the past couple of decades and zealous and inflexible regulation. But that time frame and goal is arbitrary. We will need nuclear reactors long after 2050. By 2050 we will start realizing that wind power is producing vast amounts of toxic waste which won't decompose for hundreds of thousands of years and the mining to put batteries everywhere is destroying the planet. Nuclear is the ultimate source of power production, both on this planet and out in space where renewables are out of the question. Even fusion if it proves possible will be supplemented by fission for centuries or for ever. So we might as well fast track the development and pour as many resources into it as we can. And we CAN fast-track nuclear. We could start industrial scale production within 5 years which can be exponentially increased using ship-building manufacturing methods and infrastructure as is already the plan. e\/ I'd also like to add that the cost of nuclear can go down drastically... think 10$ per MW\/h once we get our heads out of our collective, societal ass.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3800.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h963i1r","c_root_id_B":"h96f9oi","created_at_utc_A":1629128573,"created_at_utc_B":1629133138,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Y\u2019all are crazy if you think we\u2019re going to move away from using oil based products anytime soon. Literally everything we use is made with, or by way of, oil. Nuclear is the best alternative to oil as a source of energy, but I\u2019ve still yet to see any replacements in all of the other products we consume.","human_ref_B":"Unfortunately you are largely correct. For this arbitrary time-frame nuclear will be slow to the party, mostly because of investor caution, the overwhelming misinformation over the past couple of decades and zealous and inflexible regulation. But that time frame and goal is arbitrary. We will need nuclear reactors long after 2050. By 2050 we will start realizing that wind power is producing vast amounts of toxic waste which won't decompose for hundreds of thousands of years and the mining to put batteries everywhere is destroying the planet. Nuclear is the ultimate source of power production, both on this planet and out in space where renewables are out of the question. Even fusion if it proves possible will be supplemented by fission for centuries or for ever. So we might as well fast track the development and pour as many resources into it as we can. And we CAN fast-track nuclear. We could start industrial scale production within 5 years which can be exponentially increased using ship-building manufacturing methods and infrastructure as is already the plan. e\/ I'd also like to add that the cost of nuclear can go down drastically... think 10$ per MW\/h once we get our heads out of our collective, societal ass.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4565.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h96f9oi","c_root_id_B":"h95yc6v","created_at_utc_A":1629133138,"created_at_utc_B":1629126490,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Unfortunately you are largely correct. For this arbitrary time-frame nuclear will be slow to the party, mostly because of investor caution, the overwhelming misinformation over the past couple of decades and zealous and inflexible regulation. But that time frame and goal is arbitrary. We will need nuclear reactors long after 2050. By 2050 we will start realizing that wind power is producing vast amounts of toxic waste which won't decompose for hundreds of thousands of years and the mining to put batteries everywhere is destroying the planet. Nuclear is the ultimate source of power production, both on this planet and out in space where renewables are out of the question. Even fusion if it proves possible will be supplemented by fission for centuries or for ever. So we might as well fast track the development and pour as many resources into it as we can. And we CAN fast-track nuclear. We could start industrial scale production within 5 years which can be exponentially increased using ship-building manufacturing methods and infrastructure as is already the plan. e\/ I'd also like to add that the cost of nuclear can go down drastically... think 10$ per MW\/h once we get our heads out of our collective, societal ass.","human_ref_B":">Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. I agree with your whole post in general, I would just caution the LCOE makes several assumptions that make nuclear seem significantly worse than other clean energy sources. Your renewable prices don't include energy storage, right? So renewables are probably more in $50-100\/MWh including different forms of energy storage. And I believe the nuclear LCOE is based on a 40-year lifetime, while virtually every plant in the US still operating is either licensed to 60-80 years, and those that aren't are putting in their license renewals shortly. While nuclear is still more expensive than other forms of energy, it's not AS bas as Lazard says, especially if you want to put a price on carbon and account for energy-on-demand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6648.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h965g30","c_root_id_B":"h963i1r","created_at_utc_A":1629129338,"created_at_utc_B":1629128573,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants The comparison here is faulty. Nuclear creates a constant flow of energy regardless of the time of day, location, or weather. This is a huge distinction for 2 reasons. First being the cost you gave for solar and wind would need to also account for a massive storage system in order to power everything not only each night but when the extra days sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. On top of this storage system you would need massive amounts of surplus wind turbines and solar panels to charge this storage system. Basically you've compared a system that can support the entire grid to a system that might supplement the grid during a few hours a day. To make a more realistic cost comparison you must account for these differences. Second, The cost comparison for what a solar panel might create in Arizona will be significantly different that what is made is a darker, rainier, winter experiencing state like Washington. Second to that, these areas would require even more storage, massive amounts more. If you grew up in the northern US you might know that during the winter you might go multiple days without real sunshine. And in the cold panels are less efficient. Throughout this period these regions are consuming far more power than normal to heat their homes. I think you are off on the reason of cost. >There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. The good reason would be to have grid level energy production that doesn't emit fossil fuels that can be installed in any region of the U.S. that has a supply of water.","human_ref_B":"Y\u2019all are crazy if you think we\u2019re going to move away from using oil based products anytime soon. Literally everything we use is made with, or by way of, oil. Nuclear is the best alternative to oil as a source of energy, but I\u2019ve still yet to see any replacements in all of the other products we consume.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":765.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h965g30","c_root_id_B":"h95yc6v","created_at_utc_A":1629129338,"created_at_utc_B":1629126490,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants The comparison here is faulty. Nuclear creates a constant flow of energy regardless of the time of day, location, or weather. This is a huge distinction for 2 reasons. First being the cost you gave for solar and wind would need to also account for a massive storage system in order to power everything not only each night but when the extra days sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. On top of this storage system you would need massive amounts of surplus wind turbines and solar panels to charge this storage system. Basically you've compared a system that can support the entire grid to a system that might supplement the grid during a few hours a day. To make a more realistic cost comparison you must account for these differences. Second, The cost comparison for what a solar panel might create in Arizona will be significantly different that what is made is a darker, rainier, winter experiencing state like Washington. Second to that, these areas would require even more storage, massive amounts more. If you grew up in the northern US you might know that during the winter you might go multiple days without real sunshine. And in the cold panels are less efficient. Throughout this period these regions are consuming far more power than normal to heat their homes. I think you are off on the reason of cost. >There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. The good reason would be to have grid level energy production that doesn't emit fossil fuels that can be installed in any region of the U.S. that has a supply of water.","human_ref_B":">Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. I agree with your whole post in general, I would just caution the LCOE makes several assumptions that make nuclear seem significantly worse than other clean energy sources. Your renewable prices don't include energy storage, right? So renewables are probably more in $50-100\/MWh including different forms of energy storage. And I believe the nuclear LCOE is based on a 40-year lifetime, while virtually every plant in the US still operating is either licensed to 60-80 years, and those that aren't are putting in their license renewals shortly. While nuclear is still more expensive than other forms of energy, it's not AS bas as Lazard says, especially if you want to put a price on carbon and account for energy-on-demand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2848.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h971bf2","c_root_id_B":"h963i1r","created_at_utc_A":1629141857,"created_at_utc_B":1629128573,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm curious what would change your mind on this. For example, imagine, if you will, a new nuclear approach that allowed for assembly line style manufacturing of entire power plants (not just the reactor). Once the plant was delivered, it was quickly and easily assembled and all that remained was hooking it up to the grid, fueling, and performing criticality tests. Imagine time from order to delivery being 1 year and time from delivery to power on grid less than 6 months. AND imagine that due to this assembly line approach, they're able to provide all this for capital costs and generating costs approximately the same as coal (say ~$2\/W & $0.05\/kWh). Finally, imagine a single company able to crank out 50 or so of these power plants (say 500MW) every year. Assuming they were demonstrated to be quite safe, would that change your view at all?","human_ref_B":"Y\u2019all are crazy if you think we\u2019re going to move away from using oil based products anytime soon. Literally everything we use is made with, or by way of, oil. Nuclear is the best alternative to oil as a source of energy, but I\u2019ve still yet to see any replacements in all of the other products we consume.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13284.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h96mnwz","c_root_id_B":"h971bf2","created_at_utc_A":1629135990,"created_at_utc_B":1629141857,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"NIMBYism applies to everything so I'll ignore it for sake of argument. Construction time and costs are both variables, not constants. With recent investment, the construction time and costs\/mwh of Solar and Wind have drastically decreased. The same can happen to Nuclear given the will and effort to solve the difficult problems it admittedly has, and for money to flow to the right people\/places. Taking a step back, if the world is ending and we have multiple options to avert the crisis, why would we not focus on all of them?","human_ref_B":"I'm curious what would change your mind on this. For example, imagine, if you will, a new nuclear approach that allowed for assembly line style manufacturing of entire power plants (not just the reactor). Once the plant was delivered, it was quickly and easily assembled and all that remained was hooking it up to the grid, fueling, and performing criticality tests. Imagine time from order to delivery being 1 year and time from delivery to power on grid less than 6 months. AND imagine that due to this assembly line approach, they're able to provide all this for capital costs and generating costs approximately the same as coal (say ~$2\/W & $0.05\/kWh). Finally, imagine a single company able to crank out 50 or so of these power plants (say 500MW) every year. Assuming they were demonstrated to be quite safe, would that change your view at all?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5867.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h970qmm","c_root_id_B":"h971bf2","created_at_utc_A":1629141623,"created_at_utc_B":1629141857,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years   So I fully agree with your view, but this one point doesn't seem fair to me. Watts bar 2 started, stoped, then restarted construction. It's not like there were 30 years of unplanned delays. I think 9 or 10 years is a more honest number.   Here are a few recent ones: * **Watts Bar Unit 2**. The only nuclear reactor to come online in the US in the 21st century. Started construction 1973, stopped construction 1985. Started again 2007. Went online in 2016. So in the most generous of terms. 9 years. But really it was over 10 years. This was an existing plant, just a new reactor. * **Hinkley Point C** (UK) Prep work started as early as 2008. Land was purchased in 2012. Current estimated completion date is 2026. * **Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3** Existing plant, just two new reactors. Planning started in 2008. Construction started in 2013. Project abandoned in 2017. So 9 years total, but no plant. * **Vogtle 3 and 4** Existing plant, just two new reactors. Planning started in 2006. Construction started in 2009. Construction for unit 3 completed in 2020 (hasn't been turned on yet). So lets call that 15 years assuming they finish this year.","human_ref_B":"I'm curious what would change your mind on this. For example, imagine, if you will, a new nuclear approach that allowed for assembly line style manufacturing of entire power plants (not just the reactor). Once the plant was delivered, it was quickly and easily assembled and all that remained was hooking it up to the grid, fueling, and performing criticality tests. Imagine time from order to delivery being 1 year and time from delivery to power on grid less than 6 months. AND imagine that due to this assembly line approach, they're able to provide all this for capital costs and generating costs approximately the same as coal (say ~$2\/W & $0.05\/kWh). Finally, imagine a single company able to crank out 50 or so of these power plants (say 500MW) every year. Assuming they were demonstrated to be quite safe, would that change your view at all?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":234.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h971bf2","c_root_id_B":"h95yc6v","created_at_utc_A":1629141857,"created_at_utc_B":1629126490,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm curious what would change your mind on this. For example, imagine, if you will, a new nuclear approach that allowed for assembly line style manufacturing of entire power plants (not just the reactor). Once the plant was delivered, it was quickly and easily assembled and all that remained was hooking it up to the grid, fueling, and performing criticality tests. Imagine time from order to delivery being 1 year and time from delivery to power on grid less than 6 months. AND imagine that due to this assembly line approach, they're able to provide all this for capital costs and generating costs approximately the same as coal (say ~$2\/W & $0.05\/kWh). Finally, imagine a single company able to crank out 50 or so of these power plants (say 500MW) every year. Assuming they were demonstrated to be quite safe, would that change your view at all?","human_ref_B":">Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. I agree with your whole post in general, I would just caution the LCOE makes several assumptions that make nuclear seem significantly worse than other clean energy sources. Your renewable prices don't include energy storage, right? So renewables are probably more in $50-100\/MWh including different forms of energy storage. And I believe the nuclear LCOE is based on a 40-year lifetime, while virtually every plant in the US still operating is either licensed to 60-80 years, and those that aren't are putting in their license renewals shortly. While nuclear is still more expensive than other forms of energy, it's not AS bas as Lazard says, especially if you want to put a price on carbon and account for energy-on-demand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15367.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h963i1r","c_root_id_B":"h96mnwz","created_at_utc_A":1629128573,"created_at_utc_B":1629135990,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Y\u2019all are crazy if you think we\u2019re going to move away from using oil based products anytime soon. Literally everything we use is made with, or by way of, oil. Nuclear is the best alternative to oil as a source of energy, but I\u2019ve still yet to see any replacements in all of the other products we consume.","human_ref_B":"NIMBYism applies to everything so I'll ignore it for sake of argument. Construction time and costs are both variables, not constants. With recent investment, the construction time and costs\/mwh of Solar and Wind have drastically decreased. The same can happen to Nuclear given the will and effort to solve the difficult problems it admittedly has, and for money to flow to the right people\/places. Taking a step back, if the world is ending and we have multiple options to avert the crisis, why would we not focus on all of them?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7417.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h970qmm","c_root_id_B":"h963i1r","created_at_utc_A":1629141623,"created_at_utc_B":1629128573,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years   So I fully agree with your view, but this one point doesn't seem fair to me. Watts bar 2 started, stoped, then restarted construction. It's not like there were 30 years of unplanned delays. I think 9 or 10 years is a more honest number.   Here are a few recent ones: * **Watts Bar Unit 2**. The only nuclear reactor to come online in the US in the 21st century. Started construction 1973, stopped construction 1985. Started again 2007. Went online in 2016. So in the most generous of terms. 9 years. But really it was over 10 years. This was an existing plant, just a new reactor. * **Hinkley Point C** (UK) Prep work started as early as 2008. Land was purchased in 2012. Current estimated completion date is 2026. * **Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3** Existing plant, just two new reactors. Planning started in 2008. Construction started in 2013. Project abandoned in 2017. So 9 years total, but no plant. * **Vogtle 3 and 4** Existing plant, just two new reactors. Planning started in 2006. Construction started in 2009. Construction for unit 3 completed in 2020 (hasn't been turned on yet). So lets call that 15 years assuming they finish this year.","human_ref_B":"Y\u2019all are crazy if you think we\u2019re going to move away from using oil based products anytime soon. Literally everything we use is made with, or by way of, oil. Nuclear is the best alternative to oil as a source of energy, but I\u2019ve still yet to see any replacements in all of the other products we consume.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13050.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h96mnwz","c_root_id_B":"h95yc6v","created_at_utc_A":1629135990,"created_at_utc_B":1629126490,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"NIMBYism applies to everything so I'll ignore it for sake of argument. Construction time and costs are both variables, not constants. With recent investment, the construction time and costs\/mwh of Solar and Wind have drastically decreased. The same can happen to Nuclear given the will and effort to solve the difficult problems it admittedly has, and for money to flow to the right people\/places. Taking a step back, if the world is ending and we have multiple options to avert the crisis, why would we not focus on all of them?","human_ref_B":">Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. I agree with your whole post in general, I would just caution the LCOE makes several assumptions that make nuclear seem significantly worse than other clean energy sources. Your renewable prices don't include energy storage, right? So renewables are probably more in $50-100\/MWh including different forms of energy storage. And I believe the nuclear LCOE is based on a 40-year lifetime, while virtually every plant in the US still operating is either licensed to 60-80 years, and those that aren't are putting in their license renewals shortly. While nuclear is still more expensive than other forms of energy, it's not AS bas as Lazard says, especially if you want to put a price on carbon and account for energy-on-demand.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9500.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"p5hf32","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: New nuclear reactors are not going to form a significant portion of US energy decarbonization between now and the mid-late 2030s. Because this is a topic with a lot of really fervent advocates whose attention I'm likely to draw, let me clarify some things about what I'm not saying: 1. I am espousing a PREDICTIVE view, not a normative view. I am not arguing whether nuclear power is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary. 2. I am not talking about existing reactors that face retirement. That's an interesting topic but outside this scope. 3. I'm not talking about the politics or economics of nuclear power in other countries. Again, interesting but not relevant. The critical timeframe for US grid decarbonization is the next 10-15 years. That's roughly the timeframe the Biden administration is talking about to hit emissions targets of ~50% below 2005 levels. To be a part of a decarbonization strategy that fits within this timeframe, nuclear power will have to overcome a number of key economic and political obstacles: It's slow. Any low-carbon energy generation is only as useful as the fossil-fuel generation it enables us to take off the grid. For any source, this means that it's only useful once it's finished and begins pumping megawatts onto the grid. In the case of nuclear, if we're to judge by previous examples--especially in the US--that's a very long time. The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years between construction beginning and the reactor actually going online. Even a global median has tended to be in the 5-10 year construction range. Part of this is because: The US has a very NIMBY-friendly planning and construction process. We don't have to like it, but we have to acknowledge it. We've made it very easy for people to halt construction on a whole host of processes due to a whole range of concerns. For nuclear power to move forward with new construction, the industry will have to figure out a way to either convince NIMBYs or directly oppose and overcome them. This is not an obstacle unique to nuclear power (as NIMBYs have successfully opposed wind and solar projects) but it is still one that the nuclear power industry cannot pretend is nonexistent. Additionally, it's a very difficult technology to work with, and a great deal of its current workforce is nearing retirement age without a real path forward to replacement, or even expansion, of that workforce. Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. There's just not a good reason for financiers to fund new nuclear plants. If people want to argue that federal subsidies or investment could flip this picture, I'd ask that they make the case for those subsidies\/investments to actually come into being. As a point of comparison, the federal government *could* fund a national-scale high speed rail network too, but the fact is that it isn't and likely won't in the immediate future. To pre-empt the people who will bring up SMRs, I'm aware of these and that there are some pilot projects in the planning stages. However, I do not expect these to be deployed at any kind of scale meaningful to the process of national energy-sector decarbonization within the timeframe of interest here, especially bearing in mind the industry's history of both cost and time overruns. The existence of a few pilot SMR deployments would not change my view.","c_root_id_A":"h95yc6v","c_root_id_B":"h970qmm","created_at_utc_A":1629126490,"created_at_utc_B":1629141623,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">Lastly, nuclear is expensive. Last year's Lazard LCOE analysis suggests that nuclear has a levelized cost of energy range of 118-192 $ \/MWh for nuclear power, while wind is $28-54 and utility-scale solar is $32-44. I agree with your whole post in general, I would just caution the LCOE makes several assumptions that make nuclear seem significantly worse than other clean energy sources. Your renewable prices don't include energy storage, right? So renewables are probably more in $50-100\/MWh including different forms of energy storage. And I believe the nuclear LCOE is based on a 40-year lifetime, while virtually every plant in the US still operating is either licensed to 60-80 years, and those that aren't are putting in their license renewals shortly. While nuclear is still more expensive than other forms of energy, it's not AS bas as Lazard says, especially if you want to put a price on carbon and account for energy-on-demand.","human_ref_B":"> The newest reactor in the US that I'm aware of, Watts Bar 2, took more than 30 years   So I fully agree with your view, but this one point doesn't seem fair to me. Watts bar 2 started, stoped, then restarted construction. It's not like there were 30 years of unplanned delays. I think 9 or 10 years is a more honest number.   Here are a few recent ones: * **Watts Bar Unit 2**. The only nuclear reactor to come online in the US in the 21st century. Started construction 1973, stopped construction 1985. Started again 2007. Went online in 2016. So in the most generous of terms. 9 years. But really it was over 10 years. This was an existing plant, just a new reactor. * **Hinkley Point C** (UK) Prep work started as early as 2008. Land was purchased in 2012. Current estimated completion date is 2026. * **Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3** Existing plant, just two new reactors. Planning started in 2008. Construction started in 2013. Project abandoned in 2017. So 9 years total, but no plant. * **Vogtle 3 and 4** Existing plant, just two new reactors. Planning started in 2006. Construction started in 2009. Construction for unit 3 completed in 2020 (hasn't been turned on yet). So lets call that 15 years assuming they finish this year.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15133.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"fh1onq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: The electoral college shouldn't be abolished, but states should start using the Maine\/Nebraska system I fully understand that the electoral college method of electing the president was created to give power to slave states who had lots of people but not very many citizens. Being able to count slaves as 3\/5s of a person when determining number of representatives and therefore number of electoral votes gave much more power to southern voters. This is not what I want to debate, but just wanted to get it out of the way. My thoughts on the electoral college is that it gives more voice to the rural states who would likely be left out in a popular vote scheme. Yes, this means that individual voters in high population states have \"less powerful\" votes, but their state as a whole still has more power in the election than a rural state. However, the current winner-takes-all system also basically discounts the votes of those whose politics don't align with the majority of voters in a state. Instead of a winner takes all method, I believe we should go to a congressional district distribution like Maine and Nebraska use. For those unaware, in those two states, whoever gets more votes in each congressional district gets the single electoral votes from that district, and whoever wins the state overall gets the two \"senatorial\" votes. In this system there's still a boost in importance to rural states, giving them the voice they need, but also allows for popular vote to be more in play, making it necessary for candidates to appeal to everyone in country geographically. Take California and Texas as examples. In California, conservatives often feel their vote doesn't matter because the state almost always goes blue, despite rural Cali being quite conservative. In Texas the reverse is true. In a congressional district system, candidates would have to try to win the OC and Austin, appealing to the ALL the people in these states, rather than just assuming the democratic nominee will get the 55 from Cali with no sweat, and the republican nominee the 38 from Texas. It would also make it much harder for the candidate who wins the college to lose the popular vote. I believe this system would be a good compromise of both the electoral college and the popular vote.","c_root_id_A":"fk8a02p","c_root_id_B":"fk8fav8","created_at_utc_A":1583952149,"created_at_utc_B":1583954972,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"This would make the presidential elections susceptible to gerrymandering. For example, in 2012, Obama carried Virgina. however, the republicans carried 8 of the 11 congressional districts, while receiving 50.17% of the votes, to the Democrats 48%.source It's not inconceivable to think that Obama would have lost the majority of the districts in Virgina despite winning more votes.","human_ref_B":"The problem lies in implementation. If a state allocates it's electoral college vote to a \"congressional district\", gerrymandering can and will be used to give one party an advantage regardless of the popular vote. For states with a fairly even geographic distribution of members of a particular party, this is much more difficult. However, States with enclaves of particular parties will see their popular vote tallies matter less and less for the overall distribution. There are some great descriptions of how gerrymandering is used to disenfranchise the electorate online. I invite you to look into them. Splitting the electoral votes strictly by the percentage of the popular vote also presents some problems, although they are issues between the states, rather than within an individual state.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2823.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"fh1onq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: The electoral college shouldn't be abolished, but states should start using the Maine\/Nebraska system I fully understand that the electoral college method of electing the president was created to give power to slave states who had lots of people but not very many citizens. Being able to count slaves as 3\/5s of a person when determining number of representatives and therefore number of electoral votes gave much more power to southern voters. This is not what I want to debate, but just wanted to get it out of the way. My thoughts on the electoral college is that it gives more voice to the rural states who would likely be left out in a popular vote scheme. Yes, this means that individual voters in high population states have \"less powerful\" votes, but their state as a whole still has more power in the election than a rural state. However, the current winner-takes-all system also basically discounts the votes of those whose politics don't align with the majority of voters in a state. Instead of a winner takes all method, I believe we should go to a congressional district distribution like Maine and Nebraska use. For those unaware, in those two states, whoever gets more votes in each congressional district gets the single electoral votes from that district, and whoever wins the state overall gets the two \"senatorial\" votes. In this system there's still a boost in importance to rural states, giving them the voice they need, but also allows for popular vote to be more in play, making it necessary for candidates to appeal to everyone in country geographically. Take California and Texas as examples. In California, conservatives often feel their vote doesn't matter because the state almost always goes blue, despite rural Cali being quite conservative. In Texas the reverse is true. In a congressional district system, candidates would have to try to win the OC and Austin, appealing to the ALL the people in these states, rather than just assuming the democratic nominee will get the 55 from Cali with no sweat, and the republican nominee the 38 from Texas. It would also make it much harder for the candidate who wins the college to lose the popular vote. I believe this system would be a good compromise of both the electoral college and the popular vote.","c_root_id_A":"fk8a02p","c_root_id_B":"fk952ox","created_at_utc_A":1583952149,"created_at_utc_B":1583968872,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This would make the presidential elections susceptible to gerrymandering. For example, in 2012, Obama carried Virgina. however, the republicans carried 8 of the 11 congressional districts, while receiving 50.17% of the votes, to the Democrats 48%.source It's not inconceivable to think that Obama would have lost the majority of the districts in Virgina despite winning more votes.","human_ref_B":"The thing is, the Senate *already* gives a massively outsized voice to tiny minority states. There's literally *no* reason to give them even more of a vastly inflated voice in governing the US. Indeed, I would argue that the Senate imbalance should be pared back before even *talking* about how much a larger voice they should have in electing the President. There is a better way to do the proportional thing if it's *really* necessary, instead of gerrymandered districts: award a proportion of *all* of the state's electors the is rounded from the proportion of votes each candidate receives in the election. That is *not* like what Nebraska and Maine do -- it avoids the absurd over-representation of votes due to this part: \"whoever wins the state overall gets the two \"senatorial\" votes.\". Even if you think minority votes need more amplification, it's *absurd* to consider giving *all 3* votes of Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming to whoever gets 51%. At the *very most*, the winner should get 2 of the 3 electors unless the vote in that state is more than 5\/6 (halfway between 2\/3 and 100%) for one candidate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16723.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"fh1onq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: The electoral college shouldn't be abolished, but states should start using the Maine\/Nebraska system I fully understand that the electoral college method of electing the president was created to give power to slave states who had lots of people but not very many citizens. Being able to count slaves as 3\/5s of a person when determining number of representatives and therefore number of electoral votes gave much more power to southern voters. This is not what I want to debate, but just wanted to get it out of the way. My thoughts on the electoral college is that it gives more voice to the rural states who would likely be left out in a popular vote scheme. Yes, this means that individual voters in high population states have \"less powerful\" votes, but their state as a whole still has more power in the election than a rural state. However, the current winner-takes-all system also basically discounts the votes of those whose politics don't align with the majority of voters in a state. Instead of a winner takes all method, I believe we should go to a congressional district distribution like Maine and Nebraska use. For those unaware, in those two states, whoever gets more votes in each congressional district gets the single electoral votes from that district, and whoever wins the state overall gets the two \"senatorial\" votes. In this system there's still a boost in importance to rural states, giving them the voice they need, but also allows for popular vote to be more in play, making it necessary for candidates to appeal to everyone in country geographically. Take California and Texas as examples. In California, conservatives often feel their vote doesn't matter because the state almost always goes blue, despite rural Cali being quite conservative. In Texas the reverse is true. In a congressional district system, candidates would have to try to win the OC and Austin, appealing to the ALL the people in these states, rather than just assuming the democratic nominee will get the 55 from Cali with no sweat, and the republican nominee the 38 from Texas. It would also make it much harder for the candidate who wins the college to lose the popular vote. I believe this system would be a good compromise of both the electoral college and the popular vote.","c_root_id_A":"fk8vww0","c_root_id_B":"fk952ox","created_at_utc_A":1583963909,"created_at_utc_B":1583968872,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There are county-level maps of vote totals nationwide. Individual counties are shockingly consistent in what candidates they vote for. What is not consistent is how many voters in each county show up to the polls. **Wedge issues tend to motivate attendance which makes the county have more or less of a voice on the state level.** If we ignore the issue of gerrymandering for a moment and we just focus on restructuring a Nebraska\/Maine system, that means that the 100 electoral votes that are elected-at-large will be the only votes affected by these fluctuations, and only in what are currently swing states. This scenario leads to the party affiliation of each electoral vote being more consistent, not less, and that will lead to more consistent victories for only one party.","human_ref_B":"The thing is, the Senate *already* gives a massively outsized voice to tiny minority states. There's literally *no* reason to give them even more of a vastly inflated voice in governing the US. Indeed, I would argue that the Senate imbalance should be pared back before even *talking* about how much a larger voice they should have in electing the President. There is a better way to do the proportional thing if it's *really* necessary, instead of gerrymandered districts: award a proportion of *all* of the state's electors the is rounded from the proportion of votes each candidate receives in the election. That is *not* like what Nebraska and Maine do -- it avoids the absurd over-representation of votes due to this part: \"whoever wins the state overall gets the two \"senatorial\" votes.\". Even if you think minority votes need more amplification, it's *absurd* to consider giving *all 3* votes of Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming to whoever gets 51%. At the *very most*, the winner should get 2 of the 3 electors unless the vote in that state is more than 5\/6 (halfway between 2\/3 and 100%) for one candidate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4963.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"kotxne","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Why I Believe That Capitalism Is Not Working Well for Most Americans. Without reforming now capitalisms would be be existential threat to the US. There has been little or no real income growth for most people for decades. As shown in the below on the left, prime-age workers in the bottom 60% have had no real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) income growth since 1980. That was at a time when incomes for the top 10% have doubled and those of the top 1% have tripled. The percentage of children who grow up to earn more than their parents has fallen from 90% in 1970 to 50% today. That\u2019s for the population as a whole. For most of those in the lower 60%, the prospects are worse.Today, the wealth of the top 1% of the population is more than that of the bottom 90% of the population combined, which is the same sort of wealth gap that existed during the 1935-40 period (a period that brought in an era of great internal and external conflicts for most countries). Those in the top 40% now have on average more than 10 times as much wealth as those in the bottom 60%.iv That is up from six times in 1980. the income gap is about as high as ever and the wealth gap is the highest since the late 1930s. Most people in the bottom 60% are poor. One\u2019s income growth results from one\u2019s productivity growth, which results from one\u2019s personal development. So let\u2019s look at how we are developing people. Let\u2019s start with children. To me, the most intolerable situation is how our system fails to take good care of so many of our children. As I will show, a large number of them are poor, malnourished (physically and mentally), and poorly educated. Low incomes, poorly funded schools, and weak family support for children lead to poor academic achievement, which leads to low productivity and low incomes of people who become economic burdens on the society. The US population as a whole scores very poorly relative to the rest of the developed world in standardized tests for a given education level. the US is currently around the bottom 15th percentile of the developed world. US does a poor job of tending to the needs of its poor students relative to how most other countries. These poor educational results lead to a high percentage of students being inadequately prepared for work and having emotional problems that become manifest in damaging behaviors. The income\/education\/wealth\/opportunity gap reinforces the income\/education\/wealth\/opportunity gap. Bad childcare and bad education lead to badly behaved adults hence higher crime rates that inflict terrible costs on the society. The health consequences and economic costs of low education and poverty are terrible. The previously described income\/wealth\/opportunity gap and its manifestations pose existential threats to the US because these conditions weaken the US economically, threaten to bring about painful and counterproductive domestic conflict, and undermine the United States\u2019 strength relative to that of its global competitors. In addition to social and economic bad consequences, the income\/wealth\/opportunity gap is leading to dangerous social and political divisions that threaten our cohesive fabric and capitalism itself. I believe that, as a principle, if there is a very big gap in the economic conditions of people who share a budget and there is an economic downturn, there is a high risk of bad conflict. The problem is that capitalists typically don\u2019t know how to divide the pie well and socialists typically don\u2019t know how to grow it well. The Diagnosis Bipartisan and skilled shapers of policy working together to redesign the system so it works better. I believe that we will do this in a bipartisan and skilled way or we will hurt each other. So I believe the leadership should create a bipartisan commission to bring together skilled people from different communities to come up with a plan to reengineer the system to simultaneously divide and increase the economic pie better. That plan will show how to raise money and spend\/invest it well to produce good double bottom line returns. Clear metrics that can be used to judge success and hold the people in charge accountable for achieving it. Redistribution of resources that will improve both the well-beings and the productivities of the vast majority of people. Contrary to what populists of the left and populists of the right are saying, these unacceptable outcomes aren\u2019t due to either a) evil rich people doing bad things to poor people or b) lazy poor people and bureaucratic inefficiencies, as much as they are due to how the capitalist system is now working. The pursuit of greater profits and greater company efficiencies has also led companies to produce in other countries and to replace American workers with cost-effective foreign workers, which was good for these companies\u2019 profits and efficiencies but bad for the American workers\u2019 incomes. The pursuit of profit and greater efficiencies has led to the invention of new technologies that replace people, which has made companies run more efficiently, rewarded those who invented these technologies, and hurt those who were replaced by them Policy makers pay too much attention to budgets relative to returns on investments. For example, a few of the good double bottom line investments that I came across are: Early childhood education programs that produce returns of about 10-15% annualized in the form of cost savings for the government when one accounts for the lifetime benefits for the students and society. That is because they lead to better school performance, higher earnings, and lower odds of committing crimes, all of which have direct economic benefits for society. Relatively inexpensive interventions that lead to lower high school dropout rates in grades 8 and 9 can pay for themselves many times over. Moving these young students into practical higher education or trade jobs when done well is highly cost-effective. For example, the lifetime earnings of a college graduate are over $1 million higher than those of a high school dropout.liv School finance reforms show that a 10% increase in per-pupil spending can have a meaningful impact on educational outcomes for low-income students, producing a higher ROI than spending on higher-income students. Overall, researchers have found that additional school spending has an IRR of roughly 10%.lv Microfinance. For every dollar donated\/invested in this, approximately $12 is lent, paid back, and lent again over the next 10 years to disadvantaged people to start and build their businesses. Numerous infrastructure spending plans that can facilitate trade and improve productivity\/efficiency. From 33 studies that looked at the ROI of infrastructure investment, it is estimated that smart infrastructure programs have a 10-20% rate of return in terms of increased economic activity, making it a good trade for the government to borrow money and invest in infrastructure. Public health\/preventative healthcare interventions also can have very positive ROIs. From 52 studies that looked at the ROI of preventative health programs (covering a variety of program types, including vaccines, home blood pressure monitoring, smoking cessation, etc.), on average the programs created $14 of benefit for every $1 of cost. Since these areas are great double bottom line investments for the country, it would be great if they were brought to scale with government support. I believe that partnerships between philanthropy, government, and business for these types of investments are powerful because they would both increase the amount of funding and result in better vetting of the projects and programs.","c_root_id_A":"ght93np","c_root_id_B":"ght9ym4","created_at_utc_A":1609577320,"created_at_utc_B":1609578238,"score_A":9,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"> There has been little or no real income growth for most people for decades. Based on this chart alone, real, not nominal, household income has grown ~30% since the early\/mid 80s. This claim alone is factually incorrect. From 2012 onwards, the recovery after the 2008 Financial Crisis, Americans have seen significant growth in real Median Household Income. See here","human_ref_B":"The US has the third highest real wage of any nation on earth. That number factors everything from government healthcare, education, taxes and benefits, purchasing power etc. It's even a median, so it adjusts for inequality. To put it bluntly, the US economy is nothing short of phenomenal. The third most populous country on earth has maintained a per capita level of wealth only possible in a hand full of tiny oil states or finance hubs. And it has sustained this for well over a century. No country in the history of the world has done anything even close to this. Previous empties, like the UK, where fueled by vast masses of desperately poor colonial subjects. The American model of a large population of immensely wealthy citizens is new.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":918.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556} {"post_id":"kotxne","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Why I Believe That Capitalism Is Not Working Well for Most Americans. Without reforming now capitalisms would be be existential threat to the US. There has been little or no real income growth for most people for decades. As shown in the below on the left, prime-age workers in the bottom 60% have had no real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) income growth since 1980. That was at a time when incomes for the top 10% have doubled and those of the top 1% have tripled. The percentage of children who grow up to earn more than their parents has fallen from 90% in 1970 to 50% today. That\u2019s for the population as a whole. For most of those in the lower 60%, the prospects are worse.Today, the wealth of the top 1% of the population is more than that of the bottom 90% of the population combined, which is the same sort of wealth gap that existed during the 1935-40 period (a period that brought in an era of great internal and external conflicts for most countries). Those in the top 40% now have on average more than 10 times as much wealth as those in the bottom 60%.iv That is up from six times in 1980. the income gap is about as high as ever and the wealth gap is the highest since the late 1930s. Most people in the bottom 60% are poor. One\u2019s income growth results from one\u2019s productivity growth, which results from one\u2019s personal development. So let\u2019s look at how we are developing people. Let\u2019s start with children. To me, the most intolerable situation is how our system fails to take good care of so many of our children. As I will show, a large number of them are poor, malnourished (physically and mentally), and poorly educated. Low incomes, poorly funded schools, and weak family support for children lead to poor academic achievement, which leads to low productivity and low incomes of people who become economic burdens on the society. The US population as a whole scores very poorly relative to the rest of the developed world in standardized tests for a given education level. the US is currently around the bottom 15th percentile of the developed world. US does a poor job of tending to the needs of its poor students relative to how most other countries. These poor educational results lead to a high percentage of students being inadequately prepared for work and having emotional problems that become manifest in damaging behaviors. The income\/education\/wealth\/opportunity gap reinforces the income\/education\/wealth\/opportunity gap. Bad childcare and bad education lead to badly behaved adults hence higher crime rates that inflict terrible costs on the society. The health consequences and economic costs of low education and poverty are terrible. The previously described income\/wealth\/opportunity gap and its manifestations pose existential threats to the US because these conditions weaken the US economically, threaten to bring about painful and counterproductive domestic conflict, and undermine the United States\u2019 strength relative to that of its global competitors. In addition to social and economic bad consequences, the income\/wealth\/opportunity gap is leading to dangerous social and political divisions that threaten our cohesive fabric and capitalism itself. I believe that, as a principle, if there is a very big gap in the economic conditions of people who share a budget and there is an economic downturn, there is a high risk of bad conflict. The problem is that capitalists typically don\u2019t know how to divide the pie well and socialists typically don\u2019t know how to grow it well. The Diagnosis Bipartisan and skilled shapers of policy working together to redesign the system so it works better. I believe that we will do this in a bipartisan and skilled way or we will hurt each other. So I believe the leadership should create a bipartisan commission to bring together skilled people from different communities to come up with a plan to reengineer the system to simultaneously divide and increase the economic pie better. That plan will show how to raise money and spend\/invest it well to produce good double bottom line returns. Clear metrics that can be used to judge success and hold the people in charge accountable for achieving it. Redistribution of resources that will improve both the well-beings and the productivities of the vast majority of people. Contrary to what populists of the left and populists of the right are saying, these unacceptable outcomes aren\u2019t due to either a) evil rich people doing bad things to poor people or b) lazy poor people and bureaucratic inefficiencies, as much as they are due to how the capitalist system is now working. The pursuit of greater profits and greater company efficiencies has also led companies to produce in other countries and to replace American workers with cost-effective foreign workers, which was good for these companies\u2019 profits and efficiencies but bad for the American workers\u2019 incomes. The pursuit of profit and greater efficiencies has led to the invention of new technologies that replace people, which has made companies run more efficiently, rewarded those who invented these technologies, and hurt those who were replaced by them Policy makers pay too much attention to budgets relative to returns on investments. For example, a few of the good double bottom line investments that I came across are: Early childhood education programs that produce returns of about 10-15% annualized in the form of cost savings for the government when one accounts for the lifetime benefits for the students and society. That is because they lead to better school performance, higher earnings, and lower odds of committing crimes, all of which have direct economic benefits for society. Relatively inexpensive interventions that lead to lower high school dropout rates in grades 8 and 9 can pay for themselves many times over. Moving these young students into practical higher education or trade jobs when done well is highly cost-effective. For example, the lifetime earnings of a college graduate are over $1 million higher than those of a high school dropout.liv School finance reforms show that a 10% increase in per-pupil spending can have a meaningful impact on educational outcomes for low-income students, producing a higher ROI than spending on higher-income students. Overall, researchers have found that additional school spending has an IRR of roughly 10%.lv Microfinance. For every dollar donated\/invested in this, approximately $12 is lent, paid back, and lent again over the next 10 years to disadvantaged people to start and build their businesses. Numerous infrastructure spending plans that can facilitate trade and improve productivity\/efficiency. From 33 studies that looked at the ROI of infrastructure investment, it is estimated that smart infrastructure programs have a 10-20% rate of return in terms of increased economic activity, making it a good trade for the government to borrow money and invest in infrastructure. Public health\/preventative healthcare interventions also can have very positive ROIs. From 52 studies that looked at the ROI of preventative health programs (covering a variety of program types, including vaccines, home blood pressure monitoring, smoking cessation, etc.), on average the programs created $14 of benefit for every $1 of cost. Since these areas are great double bottom line investments for the country, it would be great if they were brought to scale with government support. I believe that partnerships between philanthropy, government, and business for these types of investments are powerful because they would both increase the amount of funding and result in better vetting of the projects and programs.","c_root_id_A":"ght9ym4","c_root_id_B":"ght8p43","created_at_utc_A":1609578238,"created_at_utc_B":1609576897,"score_A":14,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The US has the third highest real wage of any nation on earth. That number factors everything from government healthcare, education, taxes and benefits, purchasing power etc. It's even a median, so it adjusts for inequality. To put it bluntly, the US economy is nothing short of phenomenal. The third most populous country on earth has maintained a per capita level of wealth only possible in a hand full of tiny oil states or finance hubs. And it has sustained this for well over a century. No country in the history of the world has done anything even close to this. Previous empties, like the UK, where fueled by vast masses of desperately poor colonial subjects. The American model of a large population of immensely wealthy citizens is new.","human_ref_B":"You present a lot of good and interesting arguments and I agree with a lot of your points and proposals - especially regarding improved educational and childcare options. I do have an issue with your use of the term existential, however: While I agree that many of these are areas for improvement - how do you get from this list of issues \/ suggestions to the idea that the threat is *existential* to the US? We are ranked 15th in quality of life (https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/best-countries\/quality-of-life-rankings) - and have (arguably) the strongest military in the world (https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Military#Capability_development). I assume therefore, you believe the threat would be some kind of rebellion? Where is the evidence that the people who would benefit from these policies would otherwise be unhappy enough to take up arms? Where is the evidence that if they did so in even moderate numbers such a rebellion would successfully destroy the US?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1341.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"kotxne","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Why I Believe That Capitalism Is Not Working Well for Most Americans. Without reforming now capitalisms would be be existential threat to the US. There has been little or no real income growth for most people for decades. As shown in the below on the left, prime-age workers in the bottom 60% have had no real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) income growth since 1980. That was at a time when incomes for the top 10% have doubled and those of the top 1% have tripled. The percentage of children who grow up to earn more than their parents has fallen from 90% in 1970 to 50% today. That\u2019s for the population as a whole. For most of those in the lower 60%, the prospects are worse.Today, the wealth of the top 1% of the population is more than that of the bottom 90% of the population combined, which is the same sort of wealth gap that existed during the 1935-40 period (a period that brought in an era of great internal and external conflicts for most countries). Those in the top 40% now have on average more than 10 times as much wealth as those in the bottom 60%.iv That is up from six times in 1980. the income gap is about as high as ever and the wealth gap is the highest since the late 1930s. Most people in the bottom 60% are poor. One\u2019s income growth results from one\u2019s productivity growth, which results from one\u2019s personal development. So let\u2019s look at how we are developing people. Let\u2019s start with children. To me, the most intolerable situation is how our system fails to take good care of so many of our children. As I will show, a large number of them are poor, malnourished (physically and mentally), and poorly educated. Low incomes, poorly funded schools, and weak family support for children lead to poor academic achievement, which leads to low productivity and low incomes of people who become economic burdens on the society. The US population as a whole scores very poorly relative to the rest of the developed world in standardized tests for a given education level. the US is currently around the bottom 15th percentile of the developed world. US does a poor job of tending to the needs of its poor students relative to how most other countries. These poor educational results lead to a high percentage of students being inadequately prepared for work and having emotional problems that become manifest in damaging behaviors. The income\/education\/wealth\/opportunity gap reinforces the income\/education\/wealth\/opportunity gap. Bad childcare and bad education lead to badly behaved adults hence higher crime rates that inflict terrible costs on the society. The health consequences and economic costs of low education and poverty are terrible. The previously described income\/wealth\/opportunity gap and its manifestations pose existential threats to the US because these conditions weaken the US economically, threaten to bring about painful and counterproductive domestic conflict, and undermine the United States\u2019 strength relative to that of its global competitors. In addition to social and economic bad consequences, the income\/wealth\/opportunity gap is leading to dangerous social and political divisions that threaten our cohesive fabric and capitalism itself. I believe that, as a principle, if there is a very big gap in the economic conditions of people who share a budget and there is an economic downturn, there is a high risk of bad conflict. The problem is that capitalists typically don\u2019t know how to divide the pie well and socialists typically don\u2019t know how to grow it well. The Diagnosis Bipartisan and skilled shapers of policy working together to redesign the system so it works better. I believe that we will do this in a bipartisan and skilled way or we will hurt each other. So I believe the leadership should create a bipartisan commission to bring together skilled people from different communities to come up with a plan to reengineer the system to simultaneously divide and increase the economic pie better. That plan will show how to raise money and spend\/invest it well to produce good double bottom line returns. Clear metrics that can be used to judge success and hold the people in charge accountable for achieving it. Redistribution of resources that will improve both the well-beings and the productivities of the vast majority of people. Contrary to what populists of the left and populists of the right are saying, these unacceptable outcomes aren\u2019t due to either a) evil rich people doing bad things to poor people or b) lazy poor people and bureaucratic inefficiencies, as much as they are due to how the capitalist system is now working. The pursuit of greater profits and greater company efficiencies has also led companies to produce in other countries and to replace American workers with cost-effective foreign workers, which was good for these companies\u2019 profits and efficiencies but bad for the American workers\u2019 incomes. The pursuit of profit and greater efficiencies has led to the invention of new technologies that replace people, which has made companies run more efficiently, rewarded those who invented these technologies, and hurt those who were replaced by them Policy makers pay too much attention to budgets relative to returns on investments. For example, a few of the good double bottom line investments that I came across are: Early childhood education programs that produce returns of about 10-15% annualized in the form of cost savings for the government when one accounts for the lifetime benefits for the students and society. That is because they lead to better school performance, higher earnings, and lower odds of committing crimes, all of which have direct economic benefits for society. Relatively inexpensive interventions that lead to lower high school dropout rates in grades 8 and 9 can pay for themselves many times over. Moving these young students into practical higher education or trade jobs when done well is highly cost-effective. For example, the lifetime earnings of a college graduate are over $1 million higher than those of a high school dropout.liv School finance reforms show that a 10% increase in per-pupil spending can have a meaningful impact on educational outcomes for low-income students, producing a higher ROI than spending on higher-income students. Overall, researchers have found that additional school spending has an IRR of roughly 10%.lv Microfinance. For every dollar donated\/invested in this, approximately $12 is lent, paid back, and lent again over the next 10 years to disadvantaged people to start and build their businesses. Numerous infrastructure spending plans that can facilitate trade and improve productivity\/efficiency. From 33 studies that looked at the ROI of infrastructure investment, it is estimated that smart infrastructure programs have a 10-20% rate of return in terms of increased economic activity, making it a good trade for the government to borrow money and invest in infrastructure. Public health\/preventative healthcare interventions also can have very positive ROIs. From 52 studies that looked at the ROI of preventative health programs (covering a variety of program types, including vaccines, home blood pressure monitoring, smoking cessation, etc.), on average the programs created $14 of benefit for every $1 of cost. Since these areas are great double bottom line investments for the country, it would be great if they were brought to scale with government support. I believe that partnerships between philanthropy, government, and business for these types of investments are powerful because they would both increase the amount of funding and result in better vetting of the projects and programs.","c_root_id_A":"ght9c5v","c_root_id_B":"ght9ym4","created_at_utc_A":1609577574,"created_at_utc_B":1609578238,"score_A":2,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Modern, trickle down economics has created more wealth in the last 40 years than all of human history prior. The alternative to capitalism is socialism. Socialism is the single greatest cause of death and human suffering in history, killing hundreds of millions. Worse than cancer, worse than plagues, worse than anything. I'm sure I'll be voted down for stating well-known facts.","human_ref_B":"The US has the third highest real wage of any nation on earth. That number factors everything from government healthcare, education, taxes and benefits, purchasing power etc. It's even a median, so it adjusts for inequality. To put it bluntly, the US economy is nothing short of phenomenal. The third most populous country on earth has maintained a per capita level of wealth only possible in a hand full of tiny oil states or finance hubs. And it has sustained this for well over a century. No country in the history of the world has done anything even close to this. Previous empties, like the UK, where fueled by vast masses of desperately poor colonial subjects. The American model of a large population of immensely wealthy citizens is new.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":664.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"kotxne","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Why I Believe That Capitalism Is Not Working Well for Most Americans. Without reforming now capitalisms would be be existential threat to the US. There has been little or no real income growth for most people for decades. As shown in the below on the left, prime-age workers in the bottom 60% have had no real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) income growth since 1980. That was at a time when incomes for the top 10% have doubled and those of the top 1% have tripled. The percentage of children who grow up to earn more than their parents has fallen from 90% in 1970 to 50% today. That\u2019s for the population as a whole. For most of those in the lower 60%, the prospects are worse.Today, the wealth of the top 1% of the population is more than that of the bottom 90% of the population combined, which is the same sort of wealth gap that existed during the 1935-40 period (a period that brought in an era of great internal and external conflicts for most countries). Those in the top 40% now have on average more than 10 times as much wealth as those in the bottom 60%.iv That is up from six times in 1980. the income gap is about as high as ever and the wealth gap is the highest since the late 1930s. Most people in the bottom 60% are poor. One\u2019s income growth results from one\u2019s productivity growth, which results from one\u2019s personal development. So let\u2019s look at how we are developing people. Let\u2019s start with children. To me, the most intolerable situation is how our system fails to take good care of so many of our children. As I will show, a large number of them are poor, malnourished (physically and mentally), and poorly educated. Low incomes, poorly funded schools, and weak family support for children lead to poor academic achievement, which leads to low productivity and low incomes of people who become economic burdens on the society. The US population as a whole scores very poorly relative to the rest of the developed world in standardized tests for a given education level. the US is currently around the bottom 15th percentile of the developed world. US does a poor job of tending to the needs of its poor students relative to how most other countries. These poor educational results lead to a high percentage of students being inadequately prepared for work and having emotional problems that become manifest in damaging behaviors. The income\/education\/wealth\/opportunity gap reinforces the income\/education\/wealth\/opportunity gap. Bad childcare and bad education lead to badly behaved adults hence higher crime rates that inflict terrible costs on the society. The health consequences and economic costs of low education and poverty are terrible. The previously described income\/wealth\/opportunity gap and its manifestations pose existential threats to the US because these conditions weaken the US economically, threaten to bring about painful and counterproductive domestic conflict, and undermine the United States\u2019 strength relative to that of its global competitors. In addition to social and economic bad consequences, the income\/wealth\/opportunity gap is leading to dangerous social and political divisions that threaten our cohesive fabric and capitalism itself. I believe that, as a principle, if there is a very big gap in the economic conditions of people who share a budget and there is an economic downturn, there is a high risk of bad conflict. The problem is that capitalists typically don\u2019t know how to divide the pie well and socialists typically don\u2019t know how to grow it well. The Diagnosis Bipartisan and skilled shapers of policy working together to redesign the system so it works better. I believe that we will do this in a bipartisan and skilled way or we will hurt each other. So I believe the leadership should create a bipartisan commission to bring together skilled people from different communities to come up with a plan to reengineer the system to simultaneously divide and increase the economic pie better. That plan will show how to raise money and spend\/invest it well to produce good double bottom line returns. Clear metrics that can be used to judge success and hold the people in charge accountable for achieving it. Redistribution of resources that will improve both the well-beings and the productivities of the vast majority of people. Contrary to what populists of the left and populists of the right are saying, these unacceptable outcomes aren\u2019t due to either a) evil rich people doing bad things to poor people or b) lazy poor people and bureaucratic inefficiencies, as much as they are due to how the capitalist system is now working. The pursuit of greater profits and greater company efficiencies has also led companies to produce in other countries and to replace American workers with cost-effective foreign workers, which was good for these companies\u2019 profits and efficiencies but bad for the American workers\u2019 incomes. The pursuit of profit and greater efficiencies has led to the invention of new technologies that replace people, which has made companies run more efficiently, rewarded those who invented these technologies, and hurt those who were replaced by them Policy makers pay too much attention to budgets relative to returns on investments. For example, a few of the good double bottom line investments that I came across are: Early childhood education programs that produce returns of about 10-15% annualized in the form of cost savings for the government when one accounts for the lifetime benefits for the students and society. That is because they lead to better school performance, higher earnings, and lower odds of committing crimes, all of which have direct economic benefits for society. Relatively inexpensive interventions that lead to lower high school dropout rates in grades 8 and 9 can pay for themselves many times over. Moving these young students into practical higher education or trade jobs when done well is highly cost-effective. For example, the lifetime earnings of a college graduate are over $1 million higher than those of a high school dropout.liv School finance reforms show that a 10% increase in per-pupil spending can have a meaningful impact on educational outcomes for low-income students, producing a higher ROI than spending on higher-income students. Overall, researchers have found that additional school spending has an IRR of roughly 10%.lv Microfinance. For every dollar donated\/invested in this, approximately $12 is lent, paid back, and lent again over the next 10 years to disadvantaged people to start and build their businesses. Numerous infrastructure spending plans that can facilitate trade and improve productivity\/efficiency. From 33 studies that looked at the ROI of infrastructure investment, it is estimated that smart infrastructure programs have a 10-20% rate of return in terms of increased economic activity, making it a good trade for the government to borrow money and invest in infrastructure. Public health\/preventative healthcare interventions also can have very positive ROIs. From 52 studies that looked at the ROI of preventative health programs (covering a variety of program types, including vaccines, home blood pressure monitoring, smoking cessation, etc.), on average the programs created $14 of benefit for every $1 of cost. Since these areas are great double bottom line investments for the country, it would be great if they were brought to scale with government support. I believe that partnerships between philanthropy, government, and business for these types of investments are powerful because they would both increase the amount of funding and result in better vetting of the projects and programs.","c_root_id_A":"ght93np","c_root_id_B":"ght8p43","created_at_utc_A":1609577320,"created_at_utc_B":1609576897,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> There has been little or no real income growth for most people for decades. Based on this chart alone, real, not nominal, household income has grown ~30% since the early\/mid 80s. This claim alone is factually incorrect. From 2012 onwards, the recovery after the 2008 Financial Crisis, Americans have seen significant growth in real Median Household Income. See here","human_ref_B":"You present a lot of good and interesting arguments and I agree with a lot of your points and proposals - especially regarding improved educational and childcare options. I do have an issue with your use of the term existential, however: While I agree that many of these are areas for improvement - how do you get from this list of issues \/ suggestions to the idea that the threat is *existential* to the US? We are ranked 15th in quality of life (https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/best-countries\/quality-of-life-rankings) - and have (arguably) the strongest military in the world (https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Military#Capability_development). I assume therefore, you believe the threat would be some kind of rebellion? Where is the evidence that the people who would benefit from these policies would otherwise be unhappy enough to take up arms? Where is the evidence that if they did so in even moderate numbers such a rebellion would successfully destroy the US?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":423.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4vgtm","c_root_id_B":"hu4rdke","created_at_utc_A":1643104224,"created_at_utc_B":1643100874,"score_A":324,"score_B":87,"human_ref_A":"If you want to talk about \"the western world\" as a whole, relating to religion, the USA is a poor example to use as it is much more religious than most western countries.","human_ref_B":"I don't think framing it as religion being replaced by politics is accurate. The politics have a consistent factor for all of recorded history. What's shifted over time has been the elements people identify with and use to distinguish themselves along political lines. I think you need to take a longer view. During the Troubles you saw the lines drawn between catholic and protestant (and not for the first time in history), but also for and against independence. Religion was where one of the fault lines manifested, but it wasn't really the driver. The partisanship isn't new. Hell, even the word, its contemporary meaning goes back 500 years. Think of all of the revolutions, the extremes of partisanship demonstrated during. Moving away from religion lessened one excuse for conflict, but religion was only ever one of many.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3350.0,"score_ratio":3.724137931} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4vgtm","c_root_id_B":"hu4tk1l","created_at_utc_A":1643104224,"created_at_utc_B":1643102660,"score_A":324,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"If you want to talk about \"the western world\" as a whole, relating to religion, the USA is a poor example to use as it is much more religious than most western countries.","human_ref_B":"A correlation between a decrease in religious activities and an increase in political activities, doesn't suggest politics is replacing religion. >I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. These are two unrelated statements, as far as I can tell: - a statement about religiosity of one generation - a statement about political affiliation of another generation This doesn't address the political affiliation of the older generation, nor the religious affiliation of the younger generation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1564.0,"score_ratio":7.7142857143} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4vgtm","c_root_id_B":"hu4tz8u","created_at_utc_A":1643104224,"created_at_utc_B":1643103003,"score_A":324,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"If you want to talk about \"the western world\" as a whole, relating to religion, the USA is a poor example to use as it is much more religious than most western countries.","human_ref_B":"Do you have anything to suggest there is a link between the two radical groups? One is declining, one is increasing, but there is easy alternative logics for both and nothing to suggest they are appealing to the same audience. Or we would expect the majority of Trump supporters to be ex-christiams turned Aethiest, which they aren't. Religious radicalism is decreasing due to exposure, people are being given a choice for what religion to follow and that doesn't breed the same level of faith. Previously you had one choice, and that's just the way the universe worked. Nowadays you have 20 religions being told to a kid with no one saying which is true and which isn't and they just go \"if it was real, one of you guys would've figured it out by now\". Also science countering precious religious miracles that encouraged radicalism. While politics is becoming more radical and commonplace, because of the internet. Information spread has never been even close to current levels, people are able to engage in debates online with people that disagree and this forces people to get stronger defensive stances. Misinformation is only an issue now, because we have the ability to spread the information that misinformation is a thing. Previously people posted news articles and adverts to give children cocaine and alcohol for headaches and no one claimed misinformation, because they didn't know the alternative. So it's safe to say religion is decreasing and politics is increasing. But nothing even remotely suggests that one is replacing the other.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1221.0,"score_ratio":16.2} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4rl57","c_root_id_B":"hu4vgtm","created_at_utc_A":1643101044,"created_at_utc_B":1643104224,"score_A":17,"score_B":324,"human_ref_A":"You're misstating the facts here accidentally. True, religion is becoming less important in the west. True, politics is becoming more \"religious\" in a sense. But it's false to indicate that the rising number of atheists are the ones becoming more politically religious. Evangelical christians are the most politically engaged group in America, and they're also the most religious. Religions not being replaced. Religions changing though. There was a time when a \"good Christian\" could be any political denomination. Now, the filth has decided that only supporting Donald Trump is true Christianity.","human_ref_B":"If you want to talk about \"the western world\" as a whole, relating to religion, the USA is a poor example to use as it is much more religious than most western countries.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3180.0,"score_ratio":19.0588235294} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4vgtm","c_root_id_B":"hu4u58d","created_at_utc_A":1643104224,"created_at_utc_B":1643103143,"score_A":324,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"If you want to talk about \"the western world\" as a whole, relating to religion, the USA is a poor example to use as it is much more religious than most western countries.","human_ref_B":"In the western world organized religion usually played second fiddle to politics, and not the other way round. A good examples would be when Henry VIII changed the religion of England to get divorced, or when crusaders sacked Constantinople. In my view religion in the west has in many places been replaced by science. Religious institutions used to control education, medicine, welfare, etc. Today instead of seeking the advice of a priest, westerners find a secular proffesional.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1081.0,"score_ratio":54.0} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4y71z","c_root_id_B":"hu4rdke","created_at_utc_A":1643106427,"created_at_utc_B":1643100874,"score_A":162,"score_B":87,"human_ref_A":"Let\u2019s not get the western world confused with the United States, thank you!","human_ref_B":"I don't think framing it as religion being replaced by politics is accurate. The politics have a consistent factor for all of recorded history. What's shifted over time has been the elements people identify with and use to distinguish themselves along political lines. I think you need to take a longer view. During the Troubles you saw the lines drawn between catholic and protestant (and not for the first time in history), but also for and against independence. Religion was where one of the fault lines manifested, but it wasn't really the driver. The partisanship isn't new. Hell, even the word, its contemporary meaning goes back 500 years. Think of all of the revolutions, the extremes of partisanship demonstrated during. Moving away from religion lessened one excuse for conflict, but religion was only ever one of many.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5553.0,"score_ratio":1.8620689655} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4tk1l","c_root_id_B":"hu4y71z","created_at_utc_A":1643102660,"created_at_utc_B":1643106427,"score_A":42,"score_B":162,"human_ref_A":"A correlation between a decrease in religious activities and an increase in political activities, doesn't suggest politics is replacing religion. >I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. These are two unrelated statements, as far as I can tell: - a statement about religiosity of one generation - a statement about political affiliation of another generation This doesn't address the political affiliation of the older generation, nor the religious affiliation of the younger generation.","human_ref_B":"Let\u2019s not get the western world confused with the United States, thank you!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3767.0,"score_ratio":3.8571428571} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4y71z","c_root_id_B":"hu4tz8u","created_at_utc_A":1643106427,"created_at_utc_B":1643103003,"score_A":162,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Let\u2019s not get the western world confused with the United States, thank you!","human_ref_B":"Do you have anything to suggest there is a link between the two radical groups? One is declining, one is increasing, but there is easy alternative logics for both and nothing to suggest they are appealing to the same audience. Or we would expect the majority of Trump supporters to be ex-christiams turned Aethiest, which they aren't. Religious radicalism is decreasing due to exposure, people are being given a choice for what religion to follow and that doesn't breed the same level of faith. Previously you had one choice, and that's just the way the universe worked. Nowadays you have 20 religions being told to a kid with no one saying which is true and which isn't and they just go \"if it was real, one of you guys would've figured it out by now\". Also science countering precious religious miracles that encouraged radicalism. While politics is becoming more radical and commonplace, because of the internet. Information spread has never been even close to current levels, people are able to engage in debates online with people that disagree and this forces people to get stronger defensive stances. Misinformation is only an issue now, because we have the ability to spread the information that misinformation is a thing. Previously people posted news articles and adverts to give children cocaine and alcohol for headaches and no one claimed misinformation, because they didn't know the alternative. So it's safe to say religion is decreasing and politics is increasing. But nothing even remotely suggests that one is replacing the other.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3424.0,"score_ratio":8.1} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4y71z","c_root_id_B":"hu4xe4y","created_at_utc_A":1643106427,"created_at_utc_B":1643105784,"score_A":162,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Let\u2019s not get the western world confused with the United States, thank you!","human_ref_B":"How can you say that one is replacing the other when some of the people who are the most politically active are those Americans who are still holding on to faith. The Christian right isn't replacing religion with something else.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":643.0,"score_ratio":11.5714285714} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4y71z","c_root_id_B":"hu4rl57","created_at_utc_A":1643106427,"created_at_utc_B":1643101044,"score_A":162,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Let\u2019s not get the western world confused with the United States, thank you!","human_ref_B":"You're misstating the facts here accidentally. True, religion is becoming less important in the west. True, politics is becoming more \"religious\" in a sense. But it's false to indicate that the rising number of atheists are the ones becoming more politically religious. Evangelical christians are the most politically engaged group in America, and they're also the most religious. Religions not being replaced. Religions changing though. There was a time when a \"good Christian\" could be any political denomination. Now, the filth has decided that only supporting Donald Trump is true Christianity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5383.0,"score_ratio":9.5294117647} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4y71z","c_root_id_B":"hu4u58d","created_at_utc_A":1643106427,"created_at_utc_B":1643103143,"score_A":162,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Let\u2019s not get the western world confused with the United States, thank you!","human_ref_B":"In the western world organized religion usually played second fiddle to politics, and not the other way round. A good examples would be when Henry VIII changed the religion of England to get divorced, or when crusaders sacked Constantinople. In my view religion in the west has in many places been replaced by science. Religious institutions used to control education, medicine, welfare, etc. Today instead of seeking the advice of a priest, westerners find a secular proffesional.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3284.0,"score_ratio":27.0} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4tk1l","c_root_id_B":"hu5d1iu","created_at_utc_A":1643102660,"created_at_utc_B":1643116383,"score_A":42,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"A correlation between a decrease in religious activities and an increase in political activities, doesn't suggest politics is replacing religion. >I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. These are two unrelated statements, as far as I can tell: - a statement about religiosity of one generation - a statement about political affiliation of another generation This doesn't address the political affiliation of the older generation, nor the religious affiliation of the younger generation.","human_ref_B":"Religious Studies master student here! Not infallible or anything but my research is about the neoliberal changes to religion that are resulting from globalization (or rather, glocalization). You could say that orthodoxied, churched religion is declining in the West. Certainly you could say that. But really what seems to be happening is that some (far from all) are engaging in new, less structured, more pick-n-mix forms of religiosity, which are often labeled as and self identified as *spirituality*. The term 'religion' is contested in regards to what makes one a religion, another a cult, and another a spirituality, but the lines between them are tenuous and largely imaginary. Things like Burning Man, mindfulness, spiritual crystals, personal Christianity are all forms of religiosity which are not part of an orthodoxy and which borrow aspects from traditional religions. They are popular and growing. In a globalized, post-secularity world where identity is aquired and displayed through commercial goods, such as Thich Nhat Hanh's books, religion is not on the decline but experiencing a resurgence in a different form. Charles Taylor says that religion becoming an option, rather than an unavoidable facet of everyday life, as it was in the medieval period and before, disenchants the world. But lately people are choosing enchantment, out of the many options presented in the religious marketplace.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13723.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4tz8u","c_root_id_B":"hu5d1iu","created_at_utc_A":1643103003,"created_at_utc_B":1643116383,"score_A":20,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"Do you have anything to suggest there is a link between the two radical groups? One is declining, one is increasing, but there is easy alternative logics for both and nothing to suggest they are appealing to the same audience. Or we would expect the majority of Trump supporters to be ex-christiams turned Aethiest, which they aren't. Religious radicalism is decreasing due to exposure, people are being given a choice for what religion to follow and that doesn't breed the same level of faith. Previously you had one choice, and that's just the way the universe worked. Nowadays you have 20 religions being told to a kid with no one saying which is true and which isn't and they just go \"if it was real, one of you guys would've figured it out by now\". Also science countering precious religious miracles that encouraged radicalism. While politics is becoming more radical and commonplace, because of the internet. Information spread has never been even close to current levels, people are able to engage in debates online with people that disagree and this forces people to get stronger defensive stances. Misinformation is only an issue now, because we have the ability to spread the information that misinformation is a thing. Previously people posted news articles and adverts to give children cocaine and alcohol for headaches and no one claimed misinformation, because they didn't know the alternative. So it's safe to say religion is decreasing and politics is increasing. But nothing even remotely suggests that one is replacing the other.","human_ref_B":"Religious Studies master student here! Not infallible or anything but my research is about the neoliberal changes to religion that are resulting from globalization (or rather, glocalization). You could say that orthodoxied, churched religion is declining in the West. Certainly you could say that. But really what seems to be happening is that some (far from all) are engaging in new, less structured, more pick-n-mix forms of religiosity, which are often labeled as and self identified as *spirituality*. The term 'religion' is contested in regards to what makes one a religion, another a cult, and another a spirituality, but the lines between them are tenuous and largely imaginary. Things like Burning Man, mindfulness, spiritual crystals, personal Christianity are all forms of religiosity which are not part of an orthodoxy and which borrow aspects from traditional religions. They are popular and growing. In a globalized, post-secularity world where identity is aquired and displayed through commercial goods, such as Thich Nhat Hanh's books, religion is not on the decline but experiencing a resurgence in a different form. Charles Taylor says that religion becoming an option, rather than an unavoidable facet of everyday life, as it was in the medieval period and before, disenchants the world. But lately people are choosing enchantment, out of the many options presented in the religious marketplace.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13380.0,"score_ratio":2.45} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4xe4y","c_root_id_B":"hu5d1iu","created_at_utc_A":1643105784,"created_at_utc_B":1643116383,"score_A":14,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"How can you say that one is replacing the other when some of the people who are the most politically active are those Americans who are still holding on to faith. The Christian right isn't replacing religion with something else.","human_ref_B":"Religious Studies master student here! Not infallible or anything but my research is about the neoliberal changes to religion that are resulting from globalization (or rather, glocalization). You could say that orthodoxied, churched religion is declining in the West. Certainly you could say that. But really what seems to be happening is that some (far from all) are engaging in new, less structured, more pick-n-mix forms of religiosity, which are often labeled as and self identified as *spirituality*. The term 'religion' is contested in regards to what makes one a religion, another a cult, and another a spirituality, but the lines between them are tenuous and largely imaginary. Things like Burning Man, mindfulness, spiritual crystals, personal Christianity are all forms of religiosity which are not part of an orthodoxy and which borrow aspects from traditional religions. They are popular and growing. In a globalized, post-secularity world where identity is aquired and displayed through commercial goods, such as Thich Nhat Hanh's books, religion is not on the decline but experiencing a resurgence in a different form. Charles Taylor says that religion becoming an option, rather than an unavoidable facet of everyday life, as it was in the medieval period and before, disenchants the world. But lately people are choosing enchantment, out of the many options presented in the religious marketplace.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10599.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4rl57","c_root_id_B":"hu5d1iu","created_at_utc_A":1643101044,"created_at_utc_B":1643116383,"score_A":17,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"You're misstating the facts here accidentally. True, religion is becoming less important in the west. True, politics is becoming more \"religious\" in a sense. But it's false to indicate that the rising number of atheists are the ones becoming more politically religious. Evangelical christians are the most politically engaged group in America, and they're also the most religious. Religions not being replaced. Religions changing though. There was a time when a \"good Christian\" could be any political denomination. Now, the filth has decided that only supporting Donald Trump is true Christianity.","human_ref_B":"Religious Studies master student here! Not infallible or anything but my research is about the neoliberal changes to religion that are resulting from globalization (or rather, glocalization). You could say that orthodoxied, churched religion is declining in the West. Certainly you could say that. But really what seems to be happening is that some (far from all) are engaging in new, less structured, more pick-n-mix forms of religiosity, which are often labeled as and self identified as *spirituality*. The term 'religion' is contested in regards to what makes one a religion, another a cult, and another a spirituality, but the lines between them are tenuous and largely imaginary. Things like Burning Man, mindfulness, spiritual crystals, personal Christianity are all forms of religiosity which are not part of an orthodoxy and which borrow aspects from traditional religions. They are popular and growing. In a globalized, post-secularity world where identity is aquired and displayed through commercial goods, such as Thich Nhat Hanh's books, religion is not on the decline but experiencing a resurgence in a different form. Charles Taylor says that religion becoming an option, rather than an unavoidable facet of everyday life, as it was in the medieval period and before, disenchants the world. But lately people are choosing enchantment, out of the many options presented in the religious marketplace.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15339.0,"score_ratio":2.8823529412} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu5d1iu","c_root_id_B":"hu4u58d","created_at_utc_A":1643116383,"created_at_utc_B":1643103143,"score_A":49,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Religious Studies master student here! Not infallible or anything but my research is about the neoliberal changes to religion that are resulting from globalization (or rather, glocalization). You could say that orthodoxied, churched religion is declining in the West. Certainly you could say that. But really what seems to be happening is that some (far from all) are engaging in new, less structured, more pick-n-mix forms of religiosity, which are often labeled as and self identified as *spirituality*. The term 'religion' is contested in regards to what makes one a religion, another a cult, and another a spirituality, but the lines between them are tenuous and largely imaginary. Things like Burning Man, mindfulness, spiritual crystals, personal Christianity are all forms of religiosity which are not part of an orthodoxy and which borrow aspects from traditional religions. They are popular and growing. In a globalized, post-secularity world where identity is aquired and displayed through commercial goods, such as Thich Nhat Hanh's books, religion is not on the decline but experiencing a resurgence in a different form. Charles Taylor says that religion becoming an option, rather than an unavoidable facet of everyday life, as it was in the medieval period and before, disenchants the world. But lately people are choosing enchantment, out of the many options presented in the religious marketplace.","human_ref_B":"In the western world organized religion usually played second fiddle to politics, and not the other way round. A good examples would be when Henry VIII changed the religion of England to get divorced, or when crusaders sacked Constantinople. In my view religion in the west has in many places been replaced by science. Religious institutions used to control education, medicine, welfare, etc. Today instead of seeking the advice of a priest, westerners find a secular proffesional.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13240.0,"score_ratio":8.1666666667} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4tk1l","c_root_id_B":"hu4rl57","created_at_utc_A":1643102660,"created_at_utc_B":1643101044,"score_A":42,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"A correlation between a decrease in religious activities and an increase in political activities, doesn't suggest politics is replacing religion. >I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. These are two unrelated statements, as far as I can tell: - a statement about religiosity of one generation - a statement about political affiliation of another generation This doesn't address the political affiliation of the older generation, nor the religious affiliation of the younger generation.","human_ref_B":"You're misstating the facts here accidentally. True, religion is becoming less important in the west. True, politics is becoming more \"religious\" in a sense. But it's false to indicate that the rising number of atheists are the ones becoming more politically religious. Evangelical christians are the most politically engaged group in America, and they're also the most religious. Religions not being replaced. Religions changing though. There was a time when a \"good Christian\" could be any political denomination. Now, the filth has decided that only supporting Donald Trump is true Christianity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1616.0,"score_ratio":2.4705882353} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4tz8u","c_root_id_B":"hu4rl57","created_at_utc_A":1643103003,"created_at_utc_B":1643101044,"score_A":20,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Do you have anything to suggest there is a link between the two radical groups? One is declining, one is increasing, but there is easy alternative logics for both and nothing to suggest they are appealing to the same audience. Or we would expect the majority of Trump supporters to be ex-christiams turned Aethiest, which they aren't. Religious radicalism is decreasing due to exposure, people are being given a choice for what religion to follow and that doesn't breed the same level of faith. Previously you had one choice, and that's just the way the universe worked. Nowadays you have 20 religions being told to a kid with no one saying which is true and which isn't and they just go \"if it was real, one of you guys would've figured it out by now\". Also science countering precious religious miracles that encouraged radicalism. While politics is becoming more radical and commonplace, because of the internet. Information spread has never been even close to current levels, people are able to engage in debates online with people that disagree and this forces people to get stronger defensive stances. Misinformation is only an issue now, because we have the ability to spread the information that misinformation is a thing. Previously people posted news articles and adverts to give children cocaine and alcohol for headaches and no one claimed misinformation, because they didn't know the alternative. So it's safe to say religion is decreasing and politics is increasing. But nothing even remotely suggests that one is replacing the other.","human_ref_B":"You're misstating the facts here accidentally. True, religion is becoming less important in the west. True, politics is becoming more \"religious\" in a sense. But it's false to indicate that the rising number of atheists are the ones becoming more politically religious. Evangelical christians are the most politically engaged group in America, and they're also the most religious. Religions not being replaced. Religions changing though. There was a time when a \"good Christian\" could be any political denomination. Now, the filth has decided that only supporting Donald Trump is true Christianity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1959.0,"score_ratio":1.1764705882} {"post_id":"sc8uiu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Religion's popularity in the western world is declining and is getting replaced by politics People born in the western world for the most part seem to be losing interest in religion from what I can tell. Now it seems that religious sense of identity is fading and people are replacing that sense of identity and culture with politics. I almost feel like older generations used to have a lot more radicalized Christians in the western world. Now I feel like current generations are starting to get radicalized political partisans. It got to absurd levels with a cult of personality tied to Donald Trump. Anyhow it's both a good and depressing trend if it's true and not just what I see from my own bubble. Good in that the superstition of religion is fading and theoretically that people are more civically engaged. But bad in that the civic engagement seems to manifest in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy, lies, polarization, hatred, extremism, political gridlock, and animosity in actuality.","c_root_id_A":"hu4u58d","c_root_id_B":"hu4xe4y","created_at_utc_A":1643103143,"created_at_utc_B":1643105784,"score_A":6,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"In the western world organized religion usually played second fiddle to politics, and not the other way round. A good examples would be when Henry VIII changed the religion of England to get divorced, or when crusaders sacked Constantinople. In my view religion in the west has in many places been replaced by science. Religious institutions used to control education, medicine, welfare, etc. Today instead of seeking the advice of a priest, westerners find a secular proffesional.","human_ref_B":"How can you say that one is replacing the other when some of the people who are the most politically active are those Americans who are still holding on to faith. The Christian right isn't replacing religion with something else.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2641.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"1pkeo3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"I think parents with obese children should have tough penalties from social services and it should be classed as child neglect. CMV I believe that the parents of children with dangerously unhealthy obesity problems should be viewed at in the same way as child neglecters. They are intentionally allowing their children to cause themselves massive amounts of harm through teaching them bad eating habits. The child cannot control what he or she eats, the parent has full responsibility over the child's diet so therefore the blame lies entirely in the parent's hand when the child becomes ill through this problem. Often children grow up into obese adults who find it very difficult to change their habits because its all they have ever known. Overeating can literally ruin the lives of children. They are bullied and mocked openly in society and often fat children have huge self confidence issues that affect them later in life. This is almost all down to the parents lacking the responsibility to teach them good eating habits from a young age. Therefore the parents should be punished for ruining their children's futures. I believe this would be a positive step forward for a lot of society's overeating problems and would combat the obesity epidemic of the western world at its source.","c_root_id_A":"cd38l8p","c_root_id_B":"cd37cgs","created_at_utc_A":1383170808,"created_at_utc_B":1383167971,"score_A":13,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"18% of American children between the ages of 6 and 11 are clinically obese. Do you really think that all their parents should face \"tough penalties from social services?\" Do you really think 1 out of every 5 kids in America have neglectful parents? Do you really think that \"the blame lies entirely in the parent's hand?\" Or do you agree that this widespread social problem that can't be entirely blamed on individuals? Source: http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/healthyyouth\/obesity\/facts.htm","human_ref_B":">The child cannot control what he or she eats, the parent has full responsibility over the child's diet so therefore the blame lies entirely in the parent's hand when the child becomes ill through this problem. Do you know this as a fact, or are you just asserting it? Can you rule out genetic factors? Can you rule out environmental factors? Is it possible, as studies suggest, that having a mutated copy of the Mrap2 gene plays a significant factor in obesity? If so, then there's really no rational justification in having \"tough penalties\" from social services, just because you **claim** to know what causes obesity.* Edit: Punctuation","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2837.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iia18js","c_root_id_B":"iia0ykm","created_at_utc_A":1659201277,"created_at_utc_B":1659201152,"score_A":53,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Is there some sort of ultimate arbiter of offense? Can you submit scenarios to them to figure out if the person involved is 'justified'? If someone says \"you hurt me\", you do not get to say \"No I didn't.\" You can say \"I didn't mean to\" or something like that, but if you have offended people then you've offended people. You're right that doesn't necessarily mean you need to apologize, but I feel like arguing about whether the person who is offended is 'correct' is missing the point. Emotions are emotions, and arguing about whether it's correct to have an emotion is pointless. Also Dave Chapelle is being criticized for being transphobic, not homophobic, and if your idea of laughing at the wrongs in society includes calling yourself 'Team TERF' then I think it's entirely understandable for trans people to think that you think their existence is a wrong in soceiety.","human_ref_B":"What in your view is the dividing line between when it should matter that someone is offended and when it shouldn\u2019t matter?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":125.0,"score_ratio":2.4090909091} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iia8kpk","c_root_id_B":"iianzpf","created_at_utc_A":1659204470,"created_at_utc_B":1659211199,"score_A":14,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"For your first example, since it is hypothetical and does not have the details of the situation, I'll not comment specifically on your scenario --- let's look at actual real-world scenarios shall we? Lots of report have shown that doctors are more likely to misdiagnose obese patients, give them less screening for other potential conditions etc https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC4381543\/ \\^ this one is the one that came in a quick google search of 'fat bias' --- theres way more reports on these as well. Could the patient feel like they are being fat shamed because they wanted to screen for other issues but the doctor just shut them down and saying its all due to the person being obese? That is indeed fat shaming and the doctor is definitely at fault. ​ For your second example, I will not directly comment whether Dave Chapelle is transphobic --- but I will raise you a counterpart of your statement: claiming something to be a joke when it is offensive doesnt mean it is not offensive. If a white male sees a trans black person on the street and yells \"Haha fuck you n\\*\\*\\*\\*r f\\*\\*\\*\\*t\" and tries to say that this isnt offensive because he meant is as a joke. Should we allow these behaviour? So despite whether or not Dave Chapelle is indeed transphobic, him acting like this popularizes the idea that you can cover up offensive statements by claiming it to be a joke. (---- it doesnt mean that the person is intentionally being offensive and trying to cover up, the white male in my scenario could legitimately thought that he was being friendly and making a harmless joke, still doesnt take away the offensiveness of the statement that he uttered.)","human_ref_B":"I really dislike the framing of this. There's no cancel committee it's just people getting mad. I'm curious if you even watched the Chapelle special, the punchline of half his jokes was literally just \"haha trans people are icky\", and people are allowed to be pissed off. There are jokes people do not make. For example, comedians just don't make jokes at the expense of the American military because people will get mad. White people don't tell a lot of racist jokes on stage because it's a bad look. When you see Chapelle making a joke about trans people and you say \"this type of thing should be ok\" you're making a statement about what you believe is okay in society, and what's not. If people get mad about something based on their life experience you're not the authority to decide if that's valid or not. There's no codex of shit that's okay to be offended by, there's just people with life experiences you don't fully understand. I get so frustrated when people decide that what they're comfortable with is objective. The jokes they like are good, the ones they don't are bad. And then when someone disagrees, it's something you can just call \"cancel culture\" and dismiss it, like they're the elected official of cultural relativism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6729.0,"score_ratio":1.2142857143} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iia2ufr","c_root_id_B":"iianzpf","created_at_utc_A":1659201994,"created_at_utc_B":1659211199,"score_A":7,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"People act like claiming offense is meant to call upon some magical social force that instantly lampoons anyone for crossing any percieved line. The line is still largely societal. And though the rise of controversy if often dictated by an angry, obsessive vocal minority, it's still up to the public as a whole to decide what we think of all this. And the large, consistent pushback against \"cancel culture\" and \"safe spaces\" is evidence that while you may hear some opinions more than others, people hold all types of opinions and beliefs about how society is changing. Being offended by something is just that. It's called taking offense. It's a personal thing, and often times can happen even when the offense was unintended. Most people who are taking offense are just hoping you'll acknowledge something. Their personal experience, struggle, or relation to your comment is something they want you to understand - because they feel you would probably not make that comment if you did. You are still 100% welcome to decide which taken offenses you are willing to respect and which you don't care about. But don't blame society for seeing you as unempathetic if you choose to do so.","human_ref_B":"I really dislike the framing of this. There's no cancel committee it's just people getting mad. I'm curious if you even watched the Chapelle special, the punchline of half his jokes was literally just \"haha trans people are icky\", and people are allowed to be pissed off. There are jokes people do not make. For example, comedians just don't make jokes at the expense of the American military because people will get mad. White people don't tell a lot of racist jokes on stage because it's a bad look. When you see Chapelle making a joke about trans people and you say \"this type of thing should be ok\" you're making a statement about what you believe is okay in society, and what's not. If people get mad about something based on their life experience you're not the authority to decide if that's valid or not. There's no codex of shit that's okay to be offended by, there's just people with life experiences you don't fully understand. I get so frustrated when people decide that what they're comfortable with is objective. The jokes they like are good, the ones they don't are bad. And then when someone disagrees, it's something you can just call \"cancel culture\" and dismiss it, like they're the elected official of cultural relativism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9205.0,"score_ratio":2.4285714286} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iianzpf","c_root_id_B":"iia3qsr","created_at_utc_A":1659211199,"created_at_utc_B":1659202393,"score_A":17,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I really dislike the framing of this. There's no cancel committee it's just people getting mad. I'm curious if you even watched the Chapelle special, the punchline of half his jokes was literally just \"haha trans people are icky\", and people are allowed to be pissed off. There are jokes people do not make. For example, comedians just don't make jokes at the expense of the American military because people will get mad. White people don't tell a lot of racist jokes on stage because it's a bad look. When you see Chapelle making a joke about trans people and you say \"this type of thing should be ok\" you're making a statement about what you believe is okay in society, and what's not. If people get mad about something based on their life experience you're not the authority to decide if that's valid or not. There's no codex of shit that's okay to be offended by, there's just people with life experiences you don't fully understand. I get so frustrated when people decide that what they're comfortable with is objective. The jokes they like are good, the ones they don't are bad. And then when someone disagrees, it's something you can just call \"cancel culture\" and dismiss it, like they're the elected official of cultural relativism.","human_ref_B":"> While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Yes, intent matters. Someone being offended opens a topic for debate, and should be the start of a discussion or argument, but not the end of it. I feel that if someone is behaving in good faith, and either trying to speak the truth, or trying to The Chappelle thing is a bit worse than just a skit, as he appears to have actively lied about the context of his trans friend's suicide, the facts of his story simply do not add up with any publicly-available information, not from her death cerTwitter, where in Chappelle's words the \"trans community dragged that bitch all over Twitter. For days, they was going in on her\" Not from her family, and not from her friends. This indicates that what he was saying was not said in good faith. I'd be curious to see what you feel about someone lying about a serious topic in an effort to disparage an individual or group.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8806.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iianzpf","c_root_id_B":"iia2cmh","created_at_utc_A":1659211199,"created_at_utc_B":1659201771,"score_A":17,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I really dislike the framing of this. There's no cancel committee it's just people getting mad. I'm curious if you even watched the Chapelle special, the punchline of half his jokes was literally just \"haha trans people are icky\", and people are allowed to be pissed off. There are jokes people do not make. For example, comedians just don't make jokes at the expense of the American military because people will get mad. White people don't tell a lot of racist jokes on stage because it's a bad look. When you see Chapelle making a joke about trans people and you say \"this type of thing should be ok\" you're making a statement about what you believe is okay in society, and what's not. If people get mad about something based on their life experience you're not the authority to decide if that's valid or not. There's no codex of shit that's okay to be offended by, there's just people with life experiences you don't fully understand. I get so frustrated when people decide that what they're comfortable with is objective. The jokes they like are good, the ones they don't are bad. And then when someone disagrees, it's something you can just call \"cancel culture\" and dismiss it, like they're the elected official of cultural relativism.","human_ref_B":"It's easier to take offense than to seek understanding. It's easier to give offense rather than to have empathy. When you successfully teach people to do the thing that takes more effort then these situations won't matter. Good luck with that. Very few things ever automatically make anyone right or wrong. And no group of people will ever be unified in their perspective of a thing. If the doctor starts off saying, \"may I be frank with you,\" solves the one problem. If Dave plays to his audience and those types of people go to listen to those things, that is their choice. But choosing for another person is never right.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9428.0,"score_ratio":8.5} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iia8kpk","c_root_id_B":"iia2ufr","created_at_utc_A":1659204470,"created_at_utc_B":1659201994,"score_A":14,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"For your first example, since it is hypothetical and does not have the details of the situation, I'll not comment specifically on your scenario --- let's look at actual real-world scenarios shall we? Lots of report have shown that doctors are more likely to misdiagnose obese patients, give them less screening for other potential conditions etc https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC4381543\/ \\^ this one is the one that came in a quick google search of 'fat bias' --- theres way more reports on these as well. Could the patient feel like they are being fat shamed because they wanted to screen for other issues but the doctor just shut them down and saying its all due to the person being obese? That is indeed fat shaming and the doctor is definitely at fault. ​ For your second example, I will not directly comment whether Dave Chapelle is transphobic --- but I will raise you a counterpart of your statement: claiming something to be a joke when it is offensive doesnt mean it is not offensive. If a white male sees a trans black person on the street and yells \"Haha fuck you n\\*\\*\\*\\*r f\\*\\*\\*\\*t\" and tries to say that this isnt offensive because he meant is as a joke. Should we allow these behaviour? So despite whether or not Dave Chapelle is indeed transphobic, him acting like this popularizes the idea that you can cover up offensive statements by claiming it to be a joke. (---- it doesnt mean that the person is intentionally being offensive and trying to cover up, the white male in my scenario could legitimately thought that he was being friendly and making a harmless joke, still doesnt take away the offensiveness of the statement that he uttered.)","human_ref_B":"People act like claiming offense is meant to call upon some magical social force that instantly lampoons anyone for crossing any percieved line. The line is still largely societal. And though the rise of controversy if often dictated by an angry, obsessive vocal minority, it's still up to the public as a whole to decide what we think of all this. And the large, consistent pushback against \"cancel culture\" and \"safe spaces\" is evidence that while you may hear some opinions more than others, people hold all types of opinions and beliefs about how society is changing. Being offended by something is just that. It's called taking offense. It's a personal thing, and often times can happen even when the offense was unintended. Most people who are taking offense are just hoping you'll acknowledge something. Their personal experience, struggle, or relation to your comment is something they want you to understand - because they feel you would probably not make that comment if you did. You are still 100% welcome to decide which taken offenses you are willing to respect and which you don't care about. But don't blame society for seeing you as unempathetic if you choose to do so.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2476.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iia8kpk","c_root_id_B":"iia3qsr","created_at_utc_A":1659204470,"created_at_utc_B":1659202393,"score_A":14,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"For your first example, since it is hypothetical and does not have the details of the situation, I'll not comment specifically on your scenario --- let's look at actual real-world scenarios shall we? Lots of report have shown that doctors are more likely to misdiagnose obese patients, give them less screening for other potential conditions etc https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC4381543\/ \\^ this one is the one that came in a quick google search of 'fat bias' --- theres way more reports on these as well. Could the patient feel like they are being fat shamed because they wanted to screen for other issues but the doctor just shut them down and saying its all due to the person being obese? That is indeed fat shaming and the doctor is definitely at fault. ​ For your second example, I will not directly comment whether Dave Chapelle is transphobic --- but I will raise you a counterpart of your statement: claiming something to be a joke when it is offensive doesnt mean it is not offensive. If a white male sees a trans black person on the street and yells \"Haha fuck you n\\*\\*\\*\\*r f\\*\\*\\*\\*t\" and tries to say that this isnt offensive because he meant is as a joke. Should we allow these behaviour? So despite whether or not Dave Chapelle is indeed transphobic, him acting like this popularizes the idea that you can cover up offensive statements by claiming it to be a joke. (---- it doesnt mean that the person is intentionally being offensive and trying to cover up, the white male in my scenario could legitimately thought that he was being friendly and making a harmless joke, still doesnt take away the offensiveness of the statement that he uttered.)","human_ref_B":"> While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Yes, intent matters. Someone being offended opens a topic for debate, and should be the start of a discussion or argument, but not the end of it. I feel that if someone is behaving in good faith, and either trying to speak the truth, or trying to The Chappelle thing is a bit worse than just a skit, as he appears to have actively lied about the context of his trans friend's suicide, the facts of his story simply do not add up with any publicly-available information, not from her death cerTwitter, where in Chappelle's words the \"trans community dragged that bitch all over Twitter. For days, they was going in on her\" Not from her family, and not from her friends. This indicates that what he was saying was not said in good faith. I'd be curious to see what you feel about someone lying about a serious topic in an effort to disparage an individual or group.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2077.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iia2cmh","c_root_id_B":"iia8kpk","created_at_utc_A":1659201771,"created_at_utc_B":1659204470,"score_A":2,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"It's easier to take offense than to seek understanding. It's easier to give offense rather than to have empathy. When you successfully teach people to do the thing that takes more effort then these situations won't matter. Good luck with that. Very few things ever automatically make anyone right or wrong. And no group of people will ever be unified in their perspective of a thing. If the doctor starts off saying, \"may I be frank with you,\" solves the one problem. If Dave plays to his audience and those types of people go to listen to those things, that is their choice. But choosing for another person is never right.","human_ref_B":"For your first example, since it is hypothetical and does not have the details of the situation, I'll not comment specifically on your scenario --- let's look at actual real-world scenarios shall we? Lots of report have shown that doctors are more likely to misdiagnose obese patients, give them less screening for other potential conditions etc https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC4381543\/ \\^ this one is the one that came in a quick google search of 'fat bias' --- theres way more reports on these as well. Could the patient feel like they are being fat shamed because they wanted to screen for other issues but the doctor just shut them down and saying its all due to the person being obese? That is indeed fat shaming and the doctor is definitely at fault. ​ For your second example, I will not directly comment whether Dave Chapelle is transphobic --- but I will raise you a counterpart of your statement: claiming something to be a joke when it is offensive doesnt mean it is not offensive. If a white male sees a trans black person on the street and yells \"Haha fuck you n\\*\\*\\*\\*r f\\*\\*\\*\\*t\" and tries to say that this isnt offensive because he meant is as a joke. Should we allow these behaviour? So despite whether or not Dave Chapelle is indeed transphobic, him acting like this popularizes the idea that you can cover up offensive statements by claiming it to be a joke. (---- it doesnt mean that the person is intentionally being offensive and trying to cover up, the white male in my scenario could legitimately thought that he was being friendly and making a harmless joke, still doesnt take away the offensiveness of the statement that he uttered.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2699.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iibbcnu","c_root_id_B":"iia2ufr","created_at_utc_A":1659221778,"created_at_utc_B":1659201994,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? But your own examples **aren't actually showing examples** of anyone ever claiming otherwise. Show me any single person who is complaining that Dave Chapelle was transphobic and offensive, and let's together ask that person whether a conservative politician who is \"offended about transgender propaganda poisoning our youth\", would be morally justified. *They would say \"no\"* and they wouldn't care about respecting that person just for \"being offended\". Not a single person alive has ever claimed, or even implied, that they are always starting from the principle of \"whoever claims to be offended must be right by default\". **That's not a thing.** People have positions on actual issues, such as being pro-trans or anti-trans. No one is just on the side of whover claims to be offended. People are offended at Chapelle because those people are pro-trans, and they feel that they can raise good points for how Chapelle is anti-trans. You can disagree with them, and then we can have that conversation, but saying that they \"aren't automatically right\" is the weakest, most trivial form of doing that. It's basically just a fancier form of replying to someone \"Well, that's just your opinion\" after they made an elaborate declaration about someting. It is a petty way to imply dissent about the thing, without just openly standing up against it.","human_ref_B":"People act like claiming offense is meant to call upon some magical social force that instantly lampoons anyone for crossing any percieved line. The line is still largely societal. And though the rise of controversy if often dictated by an angry, obsessive vocal minority, it's still up to the public as a whole to decide what we think of all this. And the large, consistent pushback against \"cancel culture\" and \"safe spaces\" is evidence that while you may hear some opinions more than others, people hold all types of opinions and beliefs about how society is changing. Being offended by something is just that. It's called taking offense. It's a personal thing, and often times can happen even when the offense was unintended. Most people who are taking offense are just hoping you'll acknowledge something. Their personal experience, struggle, or relation to your comment is something they want you to understand - because they feel you would probably not make that comment if you did. You are still 100% welcome to decide which taken offenses you are willing to respect and which you don't care about. But don't blame society for seeing you as unempathetic if you choose to do so.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19784.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iibbcnu","c_root_id_B":"iia3qsr","created_at_utc_A":1659221778,"created_at_utc_B":1659202393,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? But your own examples **aren't actually showing examples** of anyone ever claiming otherwise. Show me any single person who is complaining that Dave Chapelle was transphobic and offensive, and let's together ask that person whether a conservative politician who is \"offended about transgender propaganda poisoning our youth\", would be morally justified. *They would say \"no\"* and they wouldn't care about respecting that person just for \"being offended\". Not a single person alive has ever claimed, or even implied, that they are always starting from the principle of \"whoever claims to be offended must be right by default\". **That's not a thing.** People have positions on actual issues, such as being pro-trans or anti-trans. No one is just on the side of whover claims to be offended. People are offended at Chapelle because those people are pro-trans, and they feel that they can raise good points for how Chapelle is anti-trans. You can disagree with them, and then we can have that conversation, but saying that they \"aren't automatically right\" is the weakest, most trivial form of doing that. It's basically just a fancier form of replying to someone \"Well, that's just your opinion\" after they made an elaborate declaration about someting. It is a petty way to imply dissent about the thing, without just openly standing up against it.","human_ref_B":"> While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Yes, intent matters. Someone being offended opens a topic for debate, and should be the start of a discussion or argument, but not the end of it. I feel that if someone is behaving in good faith, and either trying to speak the truth, or trying to The Chappelle thing is a bit worse than just a skit, as he appears to have actively lied about the context of his trans friend's suicide, the facts of his story simply do not add up with any publicly-available information, not from her death cerTwitter, where in Chappelle's words the \"trans community dragged that bitch all over Twitter. For days, they was going in on her\" Not from her family, and not from her friends. This indicates that what he was saying was not said in good faith. I'd be curious to see what you feel about someone lying about a serious topic in an effort to disparage an individual or group.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19385.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iibbcnu","c_root_id_B":"iia2cmh","created_at_utc_A":1659221778,"created_at_utc_B":1659201771,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? But your own examples **aren't actually showing examples** of anyone ever claiming otherwise. Show me any single person who is complaining that Dave Chapelle was transphobic and offensive, and let's together ask that person whether a conservative politician who is \"offended about transgender propaganda poisoning our youth\", would be morally justified. *They would say \"no\"* and they wouldn't care about respecting that person just for \"being offended\". Not a single person alive has ever claimed, or even implied, that they are always starting from the principle of \"whoever claims to be offended must be right by default\". **That's not a thing.** People have positions on actual issues, such as being pro-trans or anti-trans. No one is just on the side of whover claims to be offended. People are offended at Chapelle because those people are pro-trans, and they feel that they can raise good points for how Chapelle is anti-trans. You can disagree with them, and then we can have that conversation, but saying that they \"aren't automatically right\" is the weakest, most trivial form of doing that. It's basically just a fancier form of replying to someone \"Well, that's just your opinion\" after they made an elaborate declaration about someting. It is a petty way to imply dissent about the thing, without just openly standing up against it.","human_ref_B":"It's easier to take offense than to seek understanding. It's easier to give offense rather than to have empathy. When you successfully teach people to do the thing that takes more effort then these situations won't matter. Good luck with that. Very few things ever automatically make anyone right or wrong. And no group of people will ever be unified in their perspective of a thing. If the doctor starts off saying, \"may I be frank with you,\" solves the one problem. If Dave plays to his audience and those types of people go to listen to those things, that is their choice. But choosing for another person is never right.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20007.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iia2cmh","c_root_id_B":"iia2ufr","created_at_utc_A":1659201771,"created_at_utc_B":1659201994,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It's easier to take offense than to seek understanding. It's easier to give offense rather than to have empathy. When you successfully teach people to do the thing that takes more effort then these situations won't matter. Good luck with that. Very few things ever automatically make anyone right or wrong. And no group of people will ever be unified in their perspective of a thing. If the doctor starts off saying, \"may I be frank with you,\" solves the one problem. If Dave plays to his audience and those types of people go to listen to those things, that is their choice. But choosing for another person is never right.","human_ref_B":"People act like claiming offense is meant to call upon some magical social force that instantly lampoons anyone for crossing any percieved line. The line is still largely societal. And though the rise of controversy if often dictated by an angry, obsessive vocal minority, it's still up to the public as a whole to decide what we think of all this. And the large, consistent pushback against \"cancel culture\" and \"safe spaces\" is evidence that while you may hear some opinions more than others, people hold all types of opinions and beliefs about how society is changing. Being offended by something is just that. It's called taking offense. It's a personal thing, and often times can happen even when the offense was unintended. Most people who are taking offense are just hoping you'll acknowledge something. Their personal experience, struggle, or relation to your comment is something they want you to understand - because they feel you would probably not make that comment if you did. You are still 100% welcome to decide which taken offenses you are willing to respect and which you don't care about. But don't blame society for seeing you as unempathetic if you choose to do so.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":223.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"wc2850","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Being offended by something doesn\u2019t automatically justify said person being offended I feel this is relatable to the current state of society in America right now. Not necessarily with every situation, but I feel this is accurate when it comes to certain situations. The overall meaning behind my view is that I feel like just because somebody says they are offended by something someone has said, or has done, doesn\u2019t mean that they\u2019re automatically right and whoever offended them is wrong. I\u2019m sure you all are familiar with cancel culture and how it has evolved throughout the years. I\u2019ll be the first to say, because it\u2019s important that it\u2019s understood, I\u2019m not saying that I or anybody else can control what offends somebody, or control their right to be offended by anything. I\u2019m simply saying that just because someone is offended by something, doesn\u2019t mean that their taken on said action was justified for them receiving an apology, or being show any sympathy etc. It\u2019s hard to just make an example off the top, but I\u2019ll say two examples. I\u2019m me being an example to explain my view, the other being an example that takes place\/has taken place in real life. Example 1 (Hypothetical) Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a morbidly obese woman whose at the doctor\u2019s office for a checkup. The doctor then goes on to tell her that she\u2019s over weight, needs to watch what she eats, and suggest a diet for her to partake in, along with a layout for a suitable workout plan that fits this woman\u2019s body\/work schedule. Continuing on, this woman then goes on to claim that she feels offended and feels like the doctor took a body shaming approach when delivering the information he suggest for her. Is it ok for this woman to be offended? Absolutely Is the doctor in the wrong though? If this woman were to post a video crying about how she feels like she was body shamed, should this doctor be fired from his job? Keep in mind, the doctor was never disrespectful, but more so was just very blunt telling this woman what she needs to hear health wise versus what she would want to hear. Whose wrong in this situation? Example 2 (Real Life) Look at comedians of today. I\u2019m all for times in the world changing not only for the better, but just in a general sense. But I feel like comedians today offend people at their shows when the whole purpose is to make one laugh and have a good time. Jokes at a comedy show can range from cultures, to stereotypes, sexual preferences, insecurities, etc. Look at Dave Chapelle. People were trying to cancel him because they felt his show was homophobic. While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Basically to summarize everything. I\u2019ll stick to the second example to conclude. I feel like if someone feels they want to cancel Dave due to being offended, that\u2019s ok. But does it automatically make the offended party right? My view is that I don\u2019t think so. I feel like being offended is more of a opinionated thing versus factual like I see a lot people try and make it seem.","c_root_id_A":"iia2cmh","c_root_id_B":"iia3qsr","created_at_utc_A":1659201771,"created_at_utc_B":1659202393,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's easier to take offense than to seek understanding. It's easier to give offense rather than to have empathy. When you successfully teach people to do the thing that takes more effort then these situations won't matter. Good luck with that. Very few things ever automatically make anyone right or wrong. And no group of people will ever be unified in their perspective of a thing. If the doctor starts off saying, \"may I be frank with you,\" solves the one problem. If Dave plays to his audience and those types of people go to listen to those things, that is their choice. But choosing for another person is never right.","human_ref_B":"> While again, I admit that I cant tell somebody what can offend them and what cant, but does the people that felt Dave was wrong, does this mean they were automatically right? Does intent matter? Context matter? How about the Environment in which it\u2019s understood that comedy shows are entertainment and while everyone might not find it funny, it comes from a genuine place of basically laughing at the wrongs in society in an attempt to make a negative into a positive. Yes, intent matters. Someone being offended opens a topic for debate, and should be the start of a discussion or argument, but not the end of it. I feel that if someone is behaving in good faith, and either trying to speak the truth, or trying to The Chappelle thing is a bit worse than just a skit, as he appears to have actively lied about the context of his trans friend's suicide, the facts of his story simply do not add up with any publicly-available information, not from her death cerTwitter, where in Chappelle's words the \"trans community dragged that bitch all over Twitter. For days, they was going in on her\" Not from her family, and not from her friends. This indicates that what he was saying was not said in good faith. I'd be curious to see what you feel about someone lying about a serious topic in an effort to disparage an individual or group.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":622.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm460q","c_root_id_B":"grm2v83","created_at_utc_A":1616265385,"created_at_utc_B":1616264850,"score_A":182,"score_B":71,"human_ref_A":">When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. It goes well beyond that - the film had a very offensive portrayal of autism. Stims were portrayed in an offensive manner, it depicts prone restraint which is in fact quite dangerous, and they consulted Autism Speaks, which is considered by *many* on the spectrum to be a hate group. All in all, it came off as mockery of autism by NTs rather than a sympathetic portrayal. https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/2021\/02\/sias-music-receives-backlash-from-local-and-international-autism-community\/","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s not necessarily that every autistic character has to be played by an autistic actor but there are autistic actors and they are at a disadvantage for neurotypical roles. Autistic actors can play neurotypical characters but it requires masking which is really tiring and challenging. So when there are autistic roles giving consideration to autistic actors is a good thing. Additionally having autistic individuals involved in projects involving autistic characters is important. Autism was first recognized as it is known now in the 1980s and was primarily diagnosed in childhood. This means that\u2019s it\u2019s only in the last couple of decades that adults diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder have been able to advocate for themselves. For a very long time the face of autism has been the parents and caretakers of people with autism rather than those with autism. It\u2019s important that we include people with autism and allow them to be leaders in forming the narrative","labels":1,"seconds_difference":535.0,"score_ratio":2.5633802817} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm090b","c_root_id_B":"grm460q","created_at_utc_A":1616263575,"created_at_utc_B":1616265385,"score_A":38,"score_B":182,"human_ref_A":"I think there's just something slightly wrong about trying to create a compelling and realistic narrative that just sort of ignores the existence of the people it's trying to portray. It seems so much more difficult to develop such an understanding as to allow them to avoid the traps of someone who just is making shit up as they go along. I don't think necessarily that only x can play x. But then you've got to find a way in which you have such a complete understanding of the thing that you're doing, that you can give a convincing portrayal. I think the question is whether having an autistic actor would have been more difficult to make work than hiring someone who wasn't autistic.","human_ref_B":">When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. It goes well beyond that - the film had a very offensive portrayal of autism. Stims were portrayed in an offensive manner, it depicts prone restraint which is in fact quite dangerous, and they consulted Autism Speaks, which is considered by *many* on the spectrum to be a hate group. All in all, it came off as mockery of autism by NTs rather than a sympathetic portrayal. https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/2021\/02\/sias-music-receives-backlash-from-local-and-international-autism-community\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1810.0,"score_ratio":4.7894736842} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grlzzzq","c_root_id_B":"grm460q","created_at_utc_A":1616263443,"created_at_utc_B":1616265385,"score_A":20,"score_B":182,"human_ref_A":"I'm sure the argument isn't that y can never play x, but rather that x exists, is underrepresented in roles a through z, and should be given extra consideration when x-roles are available. If not for inclusivity, then for practical reasons... those reasons, of course, being that x brings x's experience as being x into the role of x.","human_ref_B":">When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. It goes well beyond that - the film had a very offensive portrayal of autism. Stims were portrayed in an offensive manner, it depicts prone restraint which is in fact quite dangerous, and they consulted Autism Speaks, which is considered by *many* on the spectrum to be a hate group. All in all, it came off as mockery of autism by NTs rather than a sympathetic portrayal. https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/2021\/02\/sias-music-receives-backlash-from-local-and-international-autism-community\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1942.0,"score_ratio":9.1} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm3l79","c_root_id_B":"grm460q","created_at_utc_A":1616265151,"created_at_utc_B":1616265385,"score_A":8,"score_B":182,"human_ref_A":"Not sure if this is far enough from your view, but here: I think saying *only* autistic actors should play autistic characters is impractical and could likely end up reducing overall representation and destigmatization of autism, but I do think they should be strongly preferred\/tried first. >\tFor autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause. I think behavior is still observable and it doesn\u2019t matter that autism doesn\u2019t have a clear physical appearance like race might. And while it\u2019s true that portrayals are better than nothing, I think representation is still a great next step. It\u2019s not just the people who are really passionate and do research that learn about the actors background. They gain fame in general but it also comes out during the marketing of the movie. Knowing that an actor playing a role in a movie is also on the spectrum further helps acceptance, and inspires those on the spectrum who *do* relate to the actor (yes not every autistic individual identifies with every other one, but some do atleast). And I mean inspires them in general not just to be actors lol On a related note, while the percentage of actors who are autistic being less than the general population may not necessarily be due to systemic issues the same way it could be for race (since individuals on the spectrum are likely to be less suited for these jobs for the reason you mentioned), there\u2019s still a barrier that\u2019s not purely due to ability. Preferring them for roles like this to start would be a great way to reduce that.","human_ref_B":">When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. It goes well beyond that - the film had a very offensive portrayal of autism. Stims were portrayed in an offensive manner, it depicts prone restraint which is in fact quite dangerous, and they consulted Autism Speaks, which is considered by *many* on the spectrum to be a hate group. All in all, it came off as mockery of autism by NTs rather than a sympathetic portrayal. https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/2021\/02\/sias-music-receives-backlash-from-local-and-international-autism-community\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":234.0,"score_ratio":22.75} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm460q","c_root_id_B":"grm20aj","created_at_utc_A":1616265385,"created_at_utc_B":1616264454,"score_A":182,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. It goes well beyond that - the film had a very offensive portrayal of autism. Stims were portrayed in an offensive manner, it depicts prone restraint which is in fact quite dangerous, and they consulted Autism Speaks, which is considered by *many* on the spectrum to be a hate group. All in all, it came off as mockery of autism by NTs rather than a sympathetic portrayal. https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/2021\/02\/sias-music-receives-backlash-from-local-and-international-autism-community\/","human_ref_B":"It's a tough issue and I think you make some strong points. I think the problem comes from an autistic person's perspective, they're in a mistreated minority. What does a non-autistic person have to go on but stereotypes about autistic people? When you make a movie that strongly features an autistic character, you're basically telling the world \"this is want autistic people are like\". It's understandable that people in a disadvantaged minority don't want to be portrayed as a stereotype.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":931.0,"score_ratio":91.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm090b","c_root_id_B":"grm2v83","created_at_utc_A":1616263575,"created_at_utc_B":1616264850,"score_A":38,"score_B":71,"human_ref_A":"I think there's just something slightly wrong about trying to create a compelling and realistic narrative that just sort of ignores the existence of the people it's trying to portray. It seems so much more difficult to develop such an understanding as to allow them to avoid the traps of someone who just is making shit up as they go along. I don't think necessarily that only x can play x. But then you've got to find a way in which you have such a complete understanding of the thing that you're doing, that you can give a convincing portrayal. I think the question is whether having an autistic actor would have been more difficult to make work than hiring someone who wasn't autistic.","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s not necessarily that every autistic character has to be played by an autistic actor but there are autistic actors and they are at a disadvantage for neurotypical roles. Autistic actors can play neurotypical characters but it requires masking which is really tiring and challenging. So when there are autistic roles giving consideration to autistic actors is a good thing. Additionally having autistic individuals involved in projects involving autistic characters is important. Autism was first recognized as it is known now in the 1980s and was primarily diagnosed in childhood. This means that\u2019s it\u2019s only in the last couple of decades that adults diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder have been able to advocate for themselves. For a very long time the face of autism has been the parents and caretakers of people with autism rather than those with autism. It\u2019s important that we include people with autism and allow them to be leaders in forming the narrative","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1275.0,"score_ratio":1.8684210526} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grlzzzq","c_root_id_B":"grm2v83","created_at_utc_A":1616263443,"created_at_utc_B":1616264850,"score_A":20,"score_B":71,"human_ref_A":"I'm sure the argument isn't that y can never play x, but rather that x exists, is underrepresented in roles a through z, and should be given extra consideration when x-roles are available. If not for inclusivity, then for practical reasons... those reasons, of course, being that x brings x's experience as being x into the role of x.","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s not necessarily that every autistic character has to be played by an autistic actor but there are autistic actors and they are at a disadvantage for neurotypical roles. Autistic actors can play neurotypical characters but it requires masking which is really tiring and challenging. So when there are autistic roles giving consideration to autistic actors is a good thing. Additionally having autistic individuals involved in projects involving autistic characters is important. Autism was first recognized as it is known now in the 1980s and was primarily diagnosed in childhood. This means that\u2019s it\u2019s only in the last couple of decades that adults diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder have been able to advocate for themselves. For a very long time the face of autism has been the parents and caretakers of people with autism rather than those with autism. It\u2019s important that we include people with autism and allow them to be leaders in forming the narrative","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1407.0,"score_ratio":3.55} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm20aj","c_root_id_B":"grm2v83","created_at_utc_A":1616264454,"created_at_utc_B":1616264850,"score_A":2,"score_B":71,"human_ref_A":"It's a tough issue and I think you make some strong points. I think the problem comes from an autistic person's perspective, they're in a mistreated minority. What does a non-autistic person have to go on but stereotypes about autistic people? When you make a movie that strongly features an autistic character, you're basically telling the world \"this is want autistic people are like\". It's understandable that people in a disadvantaged minority don't want to be portrayed as a stereotype.","human_ref_B":"It\u2019s not necessarily that every autistic character has to be played by an autistic actor but there are autistic actors and they are at a disadvantage for neurotypical roles. Autistic actors can play neurotypical characters but it requires masking which is really tiring and challenging. So when there are autistic roles giving consideration to autistic actors is a good thing. Additionally having autistic individuals involved in projects involving autistic characters is important. Autism was first recognized as it is known now in the 1980s and was primarily diagnosed in childhood. This means that\u2019s it\u2019s only in the last couple of decades that adults diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder have been able to advocate for themselves. For a very long time the face of autism has been the parents and caretakers of people with autism rather than those with autism. It\u2019s important that we include people with autism and allow them to be leaders in forming the narrative","labels":0,"seconds_difference":396.0,"score_ratio":35.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm090b","c_root_id_B":"grlzzzq","created_at_utc_A":1616263575,"created_at_utc_B":1616263443,"score_A":38,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"I think there's just something slightly wrong about trying to create a compelling and realistic narrative that just sort of ignores the existence of the people it's trying to portray. It seems so much more difficult to develop such an understanding as to allow them to avoid the traps of someone who just is making shit up as they go along. I don't think necessarily that only x can play x. But then you've got to find a way in which you have such a complete understanding of the thing that you're doing, that you can give a convincing portrayal. I think the question is whether having an autistic actor would have been more difficult to make work than hiring someone who wasn't autistic.","human_ref_B":"I'm sure the argument isn't that y can never play x, but rather that x exists, is underrepresented in roles a through z, and should be given extra consideration when x-roles are available. If not for inclusivity, then for practical reasons... those reasons, of course, being that x brings x's experience as being x into the role of x.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":132.0,"score_ratio":1.9} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grmers4","c_root_id_B":"grlzzzq","created_at_utc_A":1616269943,"created_at_utc_B":1616263443,"score_A":32,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":">In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Difficult, but far from impossible. Speaking as an autistic person myself, this is something we learn. It's not remotely impossible, but being autistic does make it more difficult. >For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. Speaking as an autistic person, when I've seen non-autistic people play in the roles, it comes across as exaggerated and unreal. Better to find someone who actually deals with it and understands it.","human_ref_B":"I'm sure the argument isn't that y can never play x, but rather that x exists, is underrepresented in roles a through z, and should be given extra consideration when x-roles are available. If not for inclusivity, then for practical reasons... those reasons, of course, being that x brings x's experience as being x into the role of x.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6500.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm3l79","c_root_id_B":"grmers4","created_at_utc_A":1616265151,"created_at_utc_B":1616269943,"score_A":8,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"Not sure if this is far enough from your view, but here: I think saying *only* autistic actors should play autistic characters is impractical and could likely end up reducing overall representation and destigmatization of autism, but I do think they should be strongly preferred\/tried first. >\tFor autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause. I think behavior is still observable and it doesn\u2019t matter that autism doesn\u2019t have a clear physical appearance like race might. And while it\u2019s true that portrayals are better than nothing, I think representation is still a great next step. It\u2019s not just the people who are really passionate and do research that learn about the actors background. They gain fame in general but it also comes out during the marketing of the movie. Knowing that an actor playing a role in a movie is also on the spectrum further helps acceptance, and inspires those on the spectrum who *do* relate to the actor (yes not every autistic individual identifies with every other one, but some do atleast). And I mean inspires them in general not just to be actors lol On a related note, while the percentage of actors who are autistic being less than the general population may not necessarily be due to systemic issues the same way it could be for race (since individuals on the spectrum are likely to be less suited for these jobs for the reason you mentioned), there\u2019s still a barrier that\u2019s not purely due to ability. Preferring them for roles like this to start would be a great way to reduce that.","human_ref_B":">In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Difficult, but far from impossible. Speaking as an autistic person myself, this is something we learn. It's not remotely impossible, but being autistic does make it more difficult. >For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. Speaking as an autistic person, when I've seen non-autistic people play in the roles, it comes across as exaggerated and unreal. Better to find someone who actually deals with it and understands it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4792.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grmers4","c_root_id_B":"grm20aj","created_at_utc_A":1616269943,"created_at_utc_B":1616264454,"score_A":32,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Difficult, but far from impossible. Speaking as an autistic person myself, this is something we learn. It's not remotely impossible, but being autistic does make it more difficult. >For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. Speaking as an autistic person, when I've seen non-autistic people play in the roles, it comes across as exaggerated and unreal. Better to find someone who actually deals with it and understands it.","human_ref_B":"It's a tough issue and I think you make some strong points. I think the problem comes from an autistic person's perspective, they're in a mistreated minority. What does a non-autistic person have to go on but stereotypes about autistic people? When you make a movie that strongly features an autistic character, you're basically telling the world \"this is want autistic people are like\". It's understandable that people in a disadvantaged minority don't want to be portrayed as a stereotype.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5489.0,"score_ratio":16.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm20aj","c_root_id_B":"grm3l79","created_at_utc_A":1616264454,"created_at_utc_B":1616265151,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"It's a tough issue and I think you make some strong points. I think the problem comes from an autistic person's perspective, they're in a mistreated minority. What does a non-autistic person have to go on but stereotypes about autistic people? When you make a movie that strongly features an autistic character, you're basically telling the world \"this is want autistic people are like\". It's understandable that people in a disadvantaged minority don't want to be portrayed as a stereotype.","human_ref_B":"Not sure if this is far enough from your view, but here: I think saying *only* autistic actors should play autistic characters is impractical and could likely end up reducing overall representation and destigmatization of autism, but I do think they should be strongly preferred\/tried first. >\tFor autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause. I think behavior is still observable and it doesn\u2019t matter that autism doesn\u2019t have a clear physical appearance like race might. And while it\u2019s true that portrayals are better than nothing, I think representation is still a great next step. It\u2019s not just the people who are really passionate and do research that learn about the actors background. They gain fame in general but it also comes out during the marketing of the movie. Knowing that an actor playing a role in a movie is also on the spectrum further helps acceptance, and inspires those on the spectrum who *do* relate to the actor (yes not every autistic individual identifies with every other one, but some do atleast). And I mean inspires them in general not just to be actors lol On a related note, while the percentage of actors who are autistic being less than the general population may not necessarily be due to systemic issues the same way it could be for race (since individuals on the spectrum are likely to be less suited for these jobs for the reason you mentioned), there\u2019s still a barrier that\u2019s not purely due to ability. Preferring them for roles like this to start would be a great way to reduce that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":697.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnk8l7","c_root_id_B":"grnsq1s","created_at_utc_A":1616289362,"created_at_utc_B":1616294244,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Hi, also Autistic here. If you've ever consumed and enjoyed any media by or with Tim Burton, Stanley Kubrick, Jerry Seinfeld, Dan Harmon, Jim Henson, or Alfred Hitchcock, then you've consumed and enjoyed media containing Autistic people, either in starring roles or in production. Autistic people can act\/produce, especially in a film like Music in which the basis is about their own experience, or about the experiences of their community.","human_ref_B":"Your argument seems to take for granted that autistic people are not quite varying in profile which is something often not represented in media. I am an autistic woman (my diagnosis would have been Asperger's syndrome but it was no longer in the DSM when I got diagnosed in March of 2019). According to the media representation of autistic person, I am probably not \"looking\" autistic. Most of portray of autistic are white men with fairly different expression than mine. As a kid, my main interest was theater, started playing at 5. I am fairly able to do eye-contact-ish (looking at hair, near the face. And yet, after working with autistic kids I got into questioning myself and got to my diagnosis. I suck at group social interaction (I can be mute at a party and still tell the host at the end that I enjoyed it). But in a smaller setting or with one of my special interest in question, well let's say you got to tie your hat because I can turn into a tornado and infodump the shit out of any subject. And I am not alone. Most women won't present as Hollywood depicted autistic characters as well as many zebra (Asperger's with high IQ). We get use to mask. If you see the spectrum as just the non-verbal autistic characters, you will forget actors that are also autistic such as Dan Aykroyd, Daryl Hannah, Mickey Rowe, Kayla Cromer, Coby Bird... Having autism does not necessary make you unable to act, we are often force to act \"neurotypical\" (I cannot after all pass the full Christmas party cuddling with my aunt cat?). I for one often mask in family setting (I haven't discuss my diagnosis in my family - no \"coming out as autistic\" for me yet (no coming out at all. My closet is big enough for all my things). But proper representation by not autistic actors is harder to achieve. Especially with the extreme of the spectrum (a non-verbal or someone like me who is almost neurotypical* -condition apply, no loud noises, no breaking of plan, no unfair treatment, no group setting). The misrepresentation is one of the reason I am not comfortable speaking about my vision of autism","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4882.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnrmdk","c_root_id_B":"grnsq1s","created_at_utc_A":1616293606,"created_at_utc_B":1616294244,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"***\u201cI have a very simple belief about acting...The job of the actor is to play someone who they are not. That\u2019s the gig, that\u2019s the job description.\u201d Harry Shearer*** This should hold true for any acting job, period.","human_ref_B":"Your argument seems to take for granted that autistic people are not quite varying in profile which is something often not represented in media. I am an autistic woman (my diagnosis would have been Asperger's syndrome but it was no longer in the DSM when I got diagnosed in March of 2019). According to the media representation of autistic person, I am probably not \"looking\" autistic. Most of portray of autistic are white men with fairly different expression than mine. As a kid, my main interest was theater, started playing at 5. I am fairly able to do eye-contact-ish (looking at hair, near the face. And yet, after working with autistic kids I got into questioning myself and got to my diagnosis. I suck at group social interaction (I can be mute at a party and still tell the host at the end that I enjoyed it). But in a smaller setting or with one of my special interest in question, well let's say you got to tie your hat because I can turn into a tornado and infodump the shit out of any subject. And I am not alone. Most women won't present as Hollywood depicted autistic characters as well as many zebra (Asperger's with high IQ). We get use to mask. If you see the spectrum as just the non-verbal autistic characters, you will forget actors that are also autistic such as Dan Aykroyd, Daryl Hannah, Mickey Rowe, Kayla Cromer, Coby Bird... Having autism does not necessary make you unable to act, we are often force to act \"neurotypical\" (I cannot after all pass the full Christmas party cuddling with my aunt cat?). I for one often mask in family setting (I haven't discuss my diagnosis in my family - no \"coming out as autistic\" for me yet (no coming out at all. My closet is big enough for all my things). But proper representation by not autistic actors is harder to achieve. Especially with the extreme of the spectrum (a non-verbal or someone like me who is almost neurotypical* -condition apply, no loud noises, no breaking of plan, no unfair treatment, no group setting). The misrepresentation is one of the reason I am not comfortable speaking about my vision of autism","labels":0,"seconds_difference":638.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm20aj","c_root_id_B":"grnsq1s","created_at_utc_A":1616264454,"created_at_utc_B":1616294244,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It's a tough issue and I think you make some strong points. I think the problem comes from an autistic person's perspective, they're in a mistreated minority. What does a non-autistic person have to go on but stereotypes about autistic people? When you make a movie that strongly features an autistic character, you're basically telling the world \"this is want autistic people are like\". It's understandable that people in a disadvantaged minority don't want to be portrayed as a stereotype.","human_ref_B":"Your argument seems to take for granted that autistic people are not quite varying in profile which is something often not represented in media. I am an autistic woman (my diagnosis would have been Asperger's syndrome but it was no longer in the DSM when I got diagnosed in March of 2019). According to the media representation of autistic person, I am probably not \"looking\" autistic. Most of portray of autistic are white men with fairly different expression than mine. As a kid, my main interest was theater, started playing at 5. I am fairly able to do eye-contact-ish (looking at hair, near the face. And yet, after working with autistic kids I got into questioning myself and got to my diagnosis. I suck at group social interaction (I can be mute at a party and still tell the host at the end that I enjoyed it). But in a smaller setting or with one of my special interest in question, well let's say you got to tie your hat because I can turn into a tornado and infodump the shit out of any subject. And I am not alone. Most women won't present as Hollywood depicted autistic characters as well as many zebra (Asperger's with high IQ). We get use to mask. If you see the spectrum as just the non-verbal autistic characters, you will forget actors that are also autistic such as Dan Aykroyd, Daryl Hannah, Mickey Rowe, Kayla Cromer, Coby Bird... Having autism does not necessary make you unable to act, we are often force to act \"neurotypical\" (I cannot after all pass the full Christmas party cuddling with my aunt cat?). I for one often mask in family setting (I haven't discuss my diagnosis in my family - no \"coming out as autistic\" for me yet (no coming out at all. My closet is big enough for all my things). But proper representation by not autistic actors is harder to achieve. Especially with the extreme of the spectrum (a non-verbal or someone like me who is almost neurotypical* -condition apply, no loud noises, no breaking of plan, no unfair treatment, no group setting). The misrepresentation is one of the reason I am not comfortable speaking about my vision of autism","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29790.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnsq1s","c_root_id_B":"grne6ia","created_at_utc_A":1616294244,"created_at_utc_B":1616285994,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Your argument seems to take for granted that autistic people are not quite varying in profile which is something often not represented in media. I am an autistic woman (my diagnosis would have been Asperger's syndrome but it was no longer in the DSM when I got diagnosed in March of 2019). According to the media representation of autistic person, I am probably not \"looking\" autistic. Most of portray of autistic are white men with fairly different expression than mine. As a kid, my main interest was theater, started playing at 5. I am fairly able to do eye-contact-ish (looking at hair, near the face. And yet, after working with autistic kids I got into questioning myself and got to my diagnosis. I suck at group social interaction (I can be mute at a party and still tell the host at the end that I enjoyed it). But in a smaller setting or with one of my special interest in question, well let's say you got to tie your hat because I can turn into a tornado and infodump the shit out of any subject. And I am not alone. Most women won't present as Hollywood depicted autistic characters as well as many zebra (Asperger's with high IQ). We get use to mask. If you see the spectrum as just the non-verbal autistic characters, you will forget actors that are also autistic such as Dan Aykroyd, Daryl Hannah, Mickey Rowe, Kayla Cromer, Coby Bird... Having autism does not necessary make you unable to act, we are often force to act \"neurotypical\" (I cannot after all pass the full Christmas party cuddling with my aunt cat?). I for one often mask in family setting (I haven't discuss my diagnosis in my family - no \"coming out as autistic\" for me yet (no coming out at all. My closet is big enough for all my things). But proper representation by not autistic actors is harder to achieve. Especially with the extreme of the spectrum (a non-verbal or someone like me who is almost neurotypical* -condition apply, no loud noises, no breaking of plan, no unfair treatment, no group setting). The misrepresentation is one of the reason I am not comfortable speaking about my vision of autism","human_ref_B":"Autistic person here, anyone can play any part. Sometimes it\u2019s better not having someone in your 14 hour daily shoot who can collapse into a huddled mass if something too loud happens or someone who can\u2019t take extreme pressure have an anxiety attack on take 56. People shouldn\u2019t be able to gatekeep so long as there\u2019s not an obvious group being taken advantage of clearly. The fact of the matter is, most Hollywood actors actually have a lot of atypical behaviors and habits anyway. There\u2019s a lot that could be said on that, but it\u2019s a spectrum.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8250.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnhos2","c_root_id_B":"grnsq1s","created_at_utc_A":1616287907,"created_at_utc_B":1616294244,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Autism doesn't always make social interactions impossible, and even if you have an autistic person with that kind of difficulties they have ways to still communicate effectively or learned to cope with it. Most autistic actors probably don't have as much difficulties in social situations as the general population anyway. This point isn't even specific to movies with autistic characters. So are you saying autistic actors should never be cast to play any role because it's harder to communicate with them? The moment where having an autistic actors vs neurotypical one really makes a difference is with the way they stim (it's instinctual, instead of learned) make facial expression, noises, the way they talk, even the way they react in stressful situations. These are all things that are pretty hard to replicate without stereotyping them. In Sia's movie, the actress just made a \"dumb\" face and weird grunts that no autistic person actually makes. So it comes off as offensive.","human_ref_B":"Your argument seems to take for granted that autistic people are not quite varying in profile which is something often not represented in media. I am an autistic woman (my diagnosis would have been Asperger's syndrome but it was no longer in the DSM when I got diagnosed in March of 2019). According to the media representation of autistic person, I am probably not \"looking\" autistic. Most of portray of autistic are white men with fairly different expression than mine. As a kid, my main interest was theater, started playing at 5. I am fairly able to do eye-contact-ish (looking at hair, near the face. And yet, after working with autistic kids I got into questioning myself and got to my diagnosis. I suck at group social interaction (I can be mute at a party and still tell the host at the end that I enjoyed it). But in a smaller setting or with one of my special interest in question, well let's say you got to tie your hat because I can turn into a tornado and infodump the shit out of any subject. And I am not alone. Most women won't present as Hollywood depicted autistic characters as well as many zebra (Asperger's with high IQ). We get use to mask. If you see the spectrum as just the non-verbal autistic characters, you will forget actors that are also autistic such as Dan Aykroyd, Daryl Hannah, Mickey Rowe, Kayla Cromer, Coby Bird... Having autism does not necessary make you unable to act, we are often force to act \"neurotypical\" (I cannot after all pass the full Christmas party cuddling with my aunt cat?). I for one often mask in family setting (I haven't discuss my diagnosis in my family - no \"coming out as autistic\" for me yet (no coming out at all. My closet is big enough for all my things). But proper representation by not autistic actors is harder to achieve. Especially with the extreme of the spectrum (a non-verbal or someone like me who is almost neurotypical* -condition apply, no loud noises, no breaking of plan, no unfair treatment, no group setting). The misrepresentation is one of the reason I am not comfortable speaking about my vision of autism","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6337.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnsq1s","c_root_id_B":"grnrq1x","created_at_utc_A":1616294244,"created_at_utc_B":1616293665,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Your argument seems to take for granted that autistic people are not quite varying in profile which is something often not represented in media. I am an autistic woman (my diagnosis would have been Asperger's syndrome but it was no longer in the DSM when I got diagnosed in March of 2019). According to the media representation of autistic person, I am probably not \"looking\" autistic. Most of portray of autistic are white men with fairly different expression than mine. As a kid, my main interest was theater, started playing at 5. I am fairly able to do eye-contact-ish (looking at hair, near the face. And yet, after working with autistic kids I got into questioning myself and got to my diagnosis. I suck at group social interaction (I can be mute at a party and still tell the host at the end that I enjoyed it). But in a smaller setting or with one of my special interest in question, well let's say you got to tie your hat because I can turn into a tornado and infodump the shit out of any subject. And I am not alone. Most women won't present as Hollywood depicted autistic characters as well as many zebra (Asperger's with high IQ). We get use to mask. If you see the spectrum as just the non-verbal autistic characters, you will forget actors that are also autistic such as Dan Aykroyd, Daryl Hannah, Mickey Rowe, Kayla Cromer, Coby Bird... Having autism does not necessary make you unable to act, we are often force to act \"neurotypical\" (I cannot after all pass the full Christmas party cuddling with my aunt cat?). I for one often mask in family setting (I haven't discuss my diagnosis in my family - no \"coming out as autistic\" for me yet (no coming out at all. My closet is big enough for all my things). But proper representation by not autistic actors is harder to achieve. Especially with the extreme of the spectrum (a non-verbal or someone like me who is almost neurotypical* -condition apply, no loud noises, no breaking of plan, no unfair treatment, no group setting). The misrepresentation is one of the reason I am not comfortable speaking about my vision of autism","human_ref_B":"I believe that the movie would've received similar criticisms if they had cast an autistic actress to play the character, as the character was written in accordance to offensive stereotypes of people with autism. The problem was not (or at least not entirely) that they cast someone who wasn't autistic, but that they only consulted two autistic people and one organization (that organization being Autism Speaks, which has been highly denounced by the autism community) in the making of the film. Because of this, the portrayal comes off as cartoonish and offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":579.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnk8l7","c_root_id_B":"grm20aj","created_at_utc_A":1616289362,"created_at_utc_B":1616264454,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hi, also Autistic here. If you've ever consumed and enjoyed any media by or with Tim Burton, Stanley Kubrick, Jerry Seinfeld, Dan Harmon, Jim Henson, or Alfred Hitchcock, then you've consumed and enjoyed media containing Autistic people, either in starring roles or in production. Autistic people can act\/produce, especially in a film like Music in which the basis is about their own experience, or about the experiences of their community.","human_ref_B":"It's a tough issue and I think you make some strong points. I think the problem comes from an autistic person's perspective, they're in a mistreated minority. What does a non-autistic person have to go on but stereotypes about autistic people? When you make a movie that strongly features an autistic character, you're basically telling the world \"this is want autistic people are like\". It's understandable that people in a disadvantaged minority don't want to be portrayed as a stereotype.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24908.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnk8l7","c_root_id_B":"grne6ia","created_at_utc_A":1616289362,"created_at_utc_B":1616285994,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hi, also Autistic here. If you've ever consumed and enjoyed any media by or with Tim Burton, Stanley Kubrick, Jerry Seinfeld, Dan Harmon, Jim Henson, or Alfred Hitchcock, then you've consumed and enjoyed media containing Autistic people, either in starring roles or in production. Autistic people can act\/produce, especially in a film like Music in which the basis is about their own experience, or about the experiences of their community.","human_ref_B":"Autistic person here, anyone can play any part. Sometimes it\u2019s better not having someone in your 14 hour daily shoot who can collapse into a huddled mass if something too loud happens or someone who can\u2019t take extreme pressure have an anxiety attack on take 56. People shouldn\u2019t be able to gatekeep so long as there\u2019s not an obvious group being taken advantage of clearly. The fact of the matter is, most Hollywood actors actually have a lot of atypical behaviors and habits anyway. There\u2019s a lot that could be said on that, but it\u2019s a spectrum.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3368.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnk8l7","c_root_id_B":"grnhos2","created_at_utc_A":1616289362,"created_at_utc_B":1616287907,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hi, also Autistic here. If you've ever consumed and enjoyed any media by or with Tim Burton, Stanley Kubrick, Jerry Seinfeld, Dan Harmon, Jim Henson, or Alfred Hitchcock, then you've consumed and enjoyed media containing Autistic people, either in starring roles or in production. Autistic people can act\/produce, especially in a film like Music in which the basis is about their own experience, or about the experiences of their community.","human_ref_B":"Autism doesn't always make social interactions impossible, and even if you have an autistic person with that kind of difficulties they have ways to still communicate effectively or learned to cope with it. Most autistic actors probably don't have as much difficulties in social situations as the general population anyway. This point isn't even specific to movies with autistic characters. So are you saying autistic actors should never be cast to play any role because it's harder to communicate with them? The moment where having an autistic actors vs neurotypical one really makes a difference is with the way they stim (it's instinctual, instead of learned) make facial expression, noises, the way they talk, even the way they react in stressful situations. These are all things that are pretty hard to replicate without stereotyping them. In Sia's movie, the actress just made a \"dumb\" face and weird grunts that no autistic person actually makes. So it comes off as offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1455.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnrmdk","c_root_id_B":"gro8k4k","created_at_utc_A":1616293606,"created_at_utc_B":1616304196,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"***\u201cI have a very simple belief about acting...The job of the actor is to play someone who they are not. That\u2019s the gig, that\u2019s the job description.\u201d Harry Shearer*** This should hold true for any acting job, period.","human_ref_B":"Let me come at this from a different angle. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the things you wrote, but other people have touched on those topics already. I don't think it's fair to neurotypical actors for directors\/producers to ask them to play autistic characters. There is such a fine line between respectful portrayal and mockery. An actor can do such a respectful and honorable job, but the post-production and scene around them can make it offensive. A bad portrayal like the would be career ending, even if it's not the actor's fault. I mean, look at the interviews with Maddie Ziegler. She had extreme anxiety for her role in the movie. She wanted the role to go to an autistic actress, but Sia had assured Maddie that she would protect her from any backlash. While most of the blame for the movie is (rightfully) going towards Sia, there is no telling what kind of damage this has done to Maddie's career from just being involved in a scandal. Maddie wanted to do the right thing, and now she is being punished for having her opinion steamrolled. You might say that it's the fault of the \"keyboard warriors,\" but any (good) production team will also be looking at PR and optics. No matter how good or respectful your portrayal is, in today's world you WILL get backlash for having a neurotypical actor play a neurodivergent character. Letting this happen to your own project, when we definitely know better by now, is a bad business move.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10590.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm20aj","c_root_id_B":"grnrmdk","created_at_utc_A":1616264454,"created_at_utc_B":1616293606,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's a tough issue and I think you make some strong points. I think the problem comes from an autistic person's perspective, they're in a mistreated minority. What does a non-autistic person have to go on but stereotypes about autistic people? When you make a movie that strongly features an autistic character, you're basically telling the world \"this is want autistic people are like\". It's understandable that people in a disadvantaged minority don't want to be portrayed as a stereotype.","human_ref_B":"***\u201cI have a very simple belief about acting...The job of the actor is to play someone who they are not. That\u2019s the gig, that\u2019s the job description.\u201d Harry Shearer*** This should hold true for any acting job, period.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29152.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnrmdk","c_root_id_B":"grne6ia","created_at_utc_A":1616293606,"created_at_utc_B":1616285994,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"***\u201cI have a very simple belief about acting...The job of the actor is to play someone who they are not. That\u2019s the gig, that\u2019s the job description.\u201d Harry Shearer*** This should hold true for any acting job, period.","human_ref_B":"Autistic person here, anyone can play any part. Sometimes it\u2019s better not having someone in your 14 hour daily shoot who can collapse into a huddled mass if something too loud happens or someone who can\u2019t take extreme pressure have an anxiety attack on take 56. People shouldn\u2019t be able to gatekeep so long as there\u2019s not an obvious group being taken advantage of clearly. The fact of the matter is, most Hollywood actors actually have a lot of atypical behaviors and habits anyway. There\u2019s a lot that could be said on that, but it\u2019s a spectrum.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7612.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnrmdk","c_root_id_B":"grnhos2","created_at_utc_A":1616293606,"created_at_utc_B":1616287907,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"***\u201cI have a very simple belief about acting...The job of the actor is to play someone who they are not. That\u2019s the gig, that\u2019s the job description.\u201d Harry Shearer*** This should hold true for any acting job, period.","human_ref_B":"Autism doesn't always make social interactions impossible, and even if you have an autistic person with that kind of difficulties they have ways to still communicate effectively or learned to cope with it. Most autistic actors probably don't have as much difficulties in social situations as the general population anyway. This point isn't even specific to movies with autistic characters. So are you saying autistic actors should never be cast to play any role because it's harder to communicate with them? The moment where having an autistic actors vs neurotypical one really makes a difference is with the way they stim (it's instinctual, instead of learned) make facial expression, noises, the way they talk, even the way they react in stressful situations. These are all things that are pretty hard to replicate without stereotyping them. In Sia's movie, the actress just made a \"dumb\" face and weird grunts that no autistic person actually makes. So it comes off as offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5699.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm20aj","c_root_id_B":"gro8k4k","created_at_utc_A":1616264454,"created_at_utc_B":1616304196,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It's a tough issue and I think you make some strong points. I think the problem comes from an autistic person's perspective, they're in a mistreated minority. What does a non-autistic person have to go on but stereotypes about autistic people? When you make a movie that strongly features an autistic character, you're basically telling the world \"this is want autistic people are like\". It's understandable that people in a disadvantaged minority don't want to be portrayed as a stereotype.","human_ref_B":"Let me come at this from a different angle. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the things you wrote, but other people have touched on those topics already. I don't think it's fair to neurotypical actors for directors\/producers to ask them to play autistic characters. There is such a fine line between respectful portrayal and mockery. An actor can do such a respectful and honorable job, but the post-production and scene around them can make it offensive. A bad portrayal like the would be career ending, even if it's not the actor's fault. I mean, look at the interviews with Maddie Ziegler. She had extreme anxiety for her role in the movie. She wanted the role to go to an autistic actress, but Sia had assured Maddie that she would protect her from any backlash. While most of the blame for the movie is (rightfully) going towards Sia, there is no telling what kind of damage this has done to Maddie's career from just being involved in a scandal. Maddie wanted to do the right thing, and now she is being punished for having her opinion steamrolled. You might say that it's the fault of the \"keyboard warriors,\" but any (good) production team will also be looking at PR and optics. No matter how good or respectful your portrayal is, in today's world you WILL get backlash for having a neurotypical actor play a neurodivergent character. Letting this happen to your own project, when we definitely know better by now, is a bad business move.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":39742.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grne6ia","c_root_id_B":"gro8k4k","created_at_utc_A":1616285994,"created_at_utc_B":1616304196,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Autistic person here, anyone can play any part. Sometimes it\u2019s better not having someone in your 14 hour daily shoot who can collapse into a huddled mass if something too loud happens or someone who can\u2019t take extreme pressure have an anxiety attack on take 56. People shouldn\u2019t be able to gatekeep so long as there\u2019s not an obvious group being taken advantage of clearly. The fact of the matter is, most Hollywood actors actually have a lot of atypical behaviors and habits anyway. There\u2019s a lot that could be said on that, but it\u2019s a spectrum.","human_ref_B":"Let me come at this from a different angle. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the things you wrote, but other people have touched on those topics already. I don't think it's fair to neurotypical actors for directors\/producers to ask them to play autistic characters. There is such a fine line between respectful portrayal and mockery. An actor can do such a respectful and honorable job, but the post-production and scene around them can make it offensive. A bad portrayal like the would be career ending, even if it's not the actor's fault. I mean, look at the interviews with Maddie Ziegler. She had extreme anxiety for her role in the movie. She wanted the role to go to an autistic actress, but Sia had assured Maddie that she would protect her from any backlash. While most of the blame for the movie is (rightfully) going towards Sia, there is no telling what kind of damage this has done to Maddie's career from just being involved in a scandal. Maddie wanted to do the right thing, and now she is being punished for having her opinion steamrolled. You might say that it's the fault of the \"keyboard warriors,\" but any (good) production team will also be looking at PR and optics. No matter how good or respectful your portrayal is, in today's world you WILL get backlash for having a neurotypical actor play a neurodivergent character. Letting this happen to your own project, when we definitely know better by now, is a bad business move.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18202.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"gro8k4k","c_root_id_B":"grnhos2","created_at_utc_A":1616304196,"created_at_utc_B":1616287907,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Let me come at this from a different angle. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the things you wrote, but other people have touched on those topics already. I don't think it's fair to neurotypical actors for directors\/producers to ask them to play autistic characters. There is such a fine line between respectful portrayal and mockery. An actor can do such a respectful and honorable job, but the post-production and scene around them can make it offensive. A bad portrayal like the would be career ending, even if it's not the actor's fault. I mean, look at the interviews with Maddie Ziegler. She had extreme anxiety for her role in the movie. She wanted the role to go to an autistic actress, but Sia had assured Maddie that she would protect her from any backlash. While most of the blame for the movie is (rightfully) going towards Sia, there is no telling what kind of damage this has done to Maddie's career from just being involved in a scandal. Maddie wanted to do the right thing, and now she is being punished for having her opinion steamrolled. You might say that it's the fault of the \"keyboard warriors,\" but any (good) production team will also be looking at PR and optics. No matter how good or respectful your portrayal is, in today's world you WILL get backlash for having a neurotypical actor play a neurodivergent character. Letting this happen to your own project, when we definitely know better by now, is a bad business move.","human_ref_B":"Autism doesn't always make social interactions impossible, and even if you have an autistic person with that kind of difficulties they have ways to still communicate effectively or learned to cope with it. Most autistic actors probably don't have as much difficulties in social situations as the general population anyway. This point isn't even specific to movies with autistic characters. So are you saying autistic actors should never be cast to play any role because it's harder to communicate with them? The moment where having an autistic actors vs neurotypical one really makes a difference is with the way they stim (it's instinctual, instead of learned) make facial expression, noises, the way they talk, even the way they react in stressful situations. These are all things that are pretty hard to replicate without stereotyping them. In Sia's movie, the actress just made a \"dumb\" face and weird grunts that no autistic person actually makes. So it comes off as offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16289.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnrq1x","c_root_id_B":"gro8k4k","created_at_utc_A":1616293665,"created_at_utc_B":1616304196,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I believe that the movie would've received similar criticisms if they had cast an autistic actress to play the character, as the character was written in accordance to offensive stereotypes of people with autism. The problem was not (or at least not entirely) that they cast someone who wasn't autistic, but that they only consulted two autistic people and one organization (that organization being Autism Speaks, which has been highly denounced by the autism community) in the making of the film. Because of this, the portrayal comes off as cartoonish and offensive.","human_ref_B":"Let me come at this from a different angle. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the things you wrote, but other people have touched on those topics already. I don't think it's fair to neurotypical actors for directors\/producers to ask them to play autistic characters. There is such a fine line between respectful portrayal and mockery. An actor can do such a respectful and honorable job, but the post-production and scene around them can make it offensive. A bad portrayal like the would be career ending, even if it's not the actor's fault. I mean, look at the interviews with Maddie Ziegler. She had extreme anxiety for her role in the movie. She wanted the role to go to an autistic actress, but Sia had assured Maddie that she would protect her from any backlash. While most of the blame for the movie is (rightfully) going towards Sia, there is no telling what kind of damage this has done to Maddie's career from just being involved in a scandal. Maddie wanted to do the right thing, and now she is being punished for having her opinion steamrolled. You might say that it's the fault of the \"keyboard warriors,\" but any (good) production team will also be looking at PR and optics. No matter how good or respectful your portrayal is, in today's world you WILL get backlash for having a neurotypical actor play a neurodivergent character. Letting this happen to your own project, when we definitely know better by now, is a bad business move.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10531.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"gro8k4k","c_root_id_B":"grnw9k3","created_at_utc_A":1616304196,"created_at_utc_B":1616296335,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Let me come at this from a different angle. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the things you wrote, but other people have touched on those topics already. I don't think it's fair to neurotypical actors for directors\/producers to ask them to play autistic characters. There is such a fine line between respectful portrayal and mockery. An actor can do such a respectful and honorable job, but the post-production and scene around them can make it offensive. A bad portrayal like the would be career ending, even if it's not the actor's fault. I mean, look at the interviews with Maddie Ziegler. She had extreme anxiety for her role in the movie. She wanted the role to go to an autistic actress, but Sia had assured Maddie that she would protect her from any backlash. While most of the blame for the movie is (rightfully) going towards Sia, there is no telling what kind of damage this has done to Maddie's career from just being involved in a scandal. Maddie wanted to do the right thing, and now she is being punished for having her opinion steamrolled. You might say that it's the fault of the \"keyboard warriors,\" but any (good) production team will also be looking at PR and optics. No matter how good or respectful your portrayal is, in today's world you WILL get backlash for having a neurotypical actor play a neurodivergent character. Letting this happen to your own project, when we definitely know better by now, is a bad business move.","human_ref_B":"Seems OP only responded 3 times in 9 hours. Mods should take this down at this point","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7861.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"gro8k4k","c_root_id_B":"gro1y6l","created_at_utc_A":1616304196,"created_at_utc_B":1616299796,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Let me come at this from a different angle. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the things you wrote, but other people have touched on those topics already. I don't think it's fair to neurotypical actors for directors\/producers to ask them to play autistic characters. There is such a fine line between respectful portrayal and mockery. An actor can do such a respectful and honorable job, but the post-production and scene around them can make it offensive. A bad portrayal like the would be career ending, even if it's not the actor's fault. I mean, look at the interviews with Maddie Ziegler. She had extreme anxiety for her role in the movie. She wanted the role to go to an autistic actress, but Sia had assured Maddie that she would protect her from any backlash. While most of the blame for the movie is (rightfully) going towards Sia, there is no telling what kind of damage this has done to Maddie's career from just being involved in a scandal. Maddie wanted to do the right thing, and now she is being punished for having her opinion steamrolled. You might say that it's the fault of the \"keyboard warriors,\" but any (good) production team will also be looking at PR and optics. No matter how good or respectful your portrayal is, in today's world you WILL get backlash for having a neurotypical actor play a neurodivergent character. Letting this happen to your own project, when we definitely know better by now, is a bad business move.","human_ref_B":"It's because the actors are playing a stereotypical act of what autism is like. Even if they've consulted atypical people, it's still follows stereotypes and is pretty offensive It's like a white man playing a black man, not only would it be extremely offensive it's also stealing jobs from the minority. Autistic people along with other challenged people are a minority One more thing you're not considering is, autism is a spectrum, not everyone is 'difficult'. There are many struggling autistic actors who would love to play the role.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4400.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grm20aj","c_root_id_B":"grnw9k3","created_at_utc_A":1616264454,"created_at_utc_B":1616296335,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's a tough issue and I think you make some strong points. I think the problem comes from an autistic person's perspective, they're in a mistreated minority. What does a non-autistic person have to go on but stereotypes about autistic people? When you make a movie that strongly features an autistic character, you're basically telling the world \"this is want autistic people are like\". It's understandable that people in a disadvantaged minority don't want to be portrayed as a stereotype.","human_ref_B":"Seems OP only responded 3 times in 9 hours. Mods should take this down at this point","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31881.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grne6ia","c_root_id_B":"grnw9k3","created_at_utc_A":1616285994,"created_at_utc_B":1616296335,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Autistic person here, anyone can play any part. Sometimes it\u2019s better not having someone in your 14 hour daily shoot who can collapse into a huddled mass if something too loud happens or someone who can\u2019t take extreme pressure have an anxiety attack on take 56. People shouldn\u2019t be able to gatekeep so long as there\u2019s not an obvious group being taken advantage of clearly. The fact of the matter is, most Hollywood actors actually have a lot of atypical behaviors and habits anyway. There\u2019s a lot that could be said on that, but it\u2019s a spectrum.","human_ref_B":"Seems OP only responded 3 times in 9 hours. Mods should take this down at this point","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10341.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnw9k3","c_root_id_B":"grnhos2","created_at_utc_A":1616296335,"created_at_utc_B":1616287907,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Seems OP only responded 3 times in 9 hours. Mods should take this down at this point","human_ref_B":"Autism doesn't always make social interactions impossible, and even if you have an autistic person with that kind of difficulties they have ways to still communicate effectively or learned to cope with it. Most autistic actors probably don't have as much difficulties in social situations as the general population anyway. This point isn't even specific to movies with autistic characters. So are you saying autistic actors should never be cast to play any role because it's harder to communicate with them? The moment where having an autistic actors vs neurotypical one really makes a difference is with the way they stim (it's instinctual, instead of learned) make facial expression, noises, the way they talk, even the way they react in stressful situations. These are all things that are pretty hard to replicate without stereotyping them. In Sia's movie, the actress just made a \"dumb\" face and weird grunts that no autistic person actually makes. So it comes off as offensive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8428.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m9ccgd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"CMV: Saying that an autistic person needs to play an autistic character in a film\/show does not make a lot of sense. Before you argue that I am saying autistic people shouldn't be in film and media, let me clarify I am not saying that. I just feel like the argument that they should or have be played by neuro-atypical individuals doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When Smile was released by SIA a prevailing criticism I saw was that she chose an actress who did not have autism to play a role of an autistic teen. This does not make sense for quite a few reasons firstly by definition autism makes social interactions very difficult and understanding small social cues very challenging. An actor and the director and other actors will often have plenty of convos of their vision for how charecters interact and behave and have expectations which often can not be met. In addition mimicking behaviours and mirroring emotions is also a difficulty that autistic people deal with. Conversely i beleive an individual with down syndrome can play a role suited for someone with down syndrome since there isn't a lot of nuance associated with the role, and also replicate the look of. a down syndrome individual wold probably be more costly than actually hiring a down syndrome actor. For autism, there isn't really any factors that differentiate them and make it necessary for a role to be played by someone in the autistic community, the uniqueness comes from within, from behaviours and interests and style. For this reason it does not really make a lot of sense to hire an autistic actor since there is also no difference for people watching the fim or show going in with not a lot of background of the actors. Whether they actually have an autistic or non autistic actor would not make a difference in that regard, and would only matter for people who do their due dillegence and read up and are very passionate about the cause.","c_root_id_A":"grnrq1x","c_root_id_B":"grnw9k3","created_at_utc_A":1616293665,"created_at_utc_B":1616296335,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I believe that the movie would've received similar criticisms if they had cast an autistic actress to play the character, as the character was written in accordance to offensive stereotypes of people with autism. The problem was not (or at least not entirely) that they cast someone who wasn't autistic, but that they only consulted two autistic people and one organization (that organization being Autism Speaks, which has been highly denounced by the autism community) in the making of the film. Because of this, the portrayal comes off as cartoonish and offensive.","human_ref_B":"Seems OP only responded 3 times in 9 hours. Mods should take this down at this point","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2670.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"o5mr8q","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: the argument about black hairstyles on white people can be counterproductive I have seen so much discourse about this lately (mostly from Americans) where they say that white people, even those with textured hair cannot braid it in a protective style. More so I have seen black owned businesses that will not sell to any white people. More and more I see people calling white people with locks in their hair racist if they call them dread locks despite their own cultures having the exact same style only with a different name. I think hyper-focusing on hair and calling people racist for it takes away from the severity of actual prejudice not to mention gate-keeping something like this only perpetuates an \u201cus vs them\u201d mentality. I am very open to changing my view if a good explanation can be granted. Thanks for reading","c_root_id_A":"h2nv4z0","c_root_id_B":"h2nc1g1","created_at_utc_A":1624376709,"created_at_utc_B":1624367443,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Okay, imagine you're a kid in elementary school. Maybe third grade. Every morning before you go to school, your mom does your hair in this really interesting, unique way that's kinda been passed down through the family - your mom, your grandma, etc. The only problem is, the popular kids at school *hate* your hair style. They constantly mock you, humiliate you, call you names, make you feel like a freak or a weirdo - all because of your hair. But regardless, you don't give in, because you're still proud of your hair, despite everything. Then, one day, you get to school and find that this super popular kid - maybe her name is Cindy - is wearing *your exact hair style.* And the crazy thing is, all the other popular kids *love it.* They're like, \"Cindy, your hair is so beautiful!\" and \"Wow, your hair's so unique, how'd you come up with that?\" Naturally, you're a little suspicious. You say, \"You realize *I've* been wearing that same hairstyle for years, right? Cindy didn't invent it, if that's what you think.\" But everybody brushes you off. \"Don't be silly, hairstyles don't *belong* to anyone! Everybody's entitled to wear their hair however they want. Besides, I think Cindy's great-great-great-grandma used to have this hairstyle too.\" That doesn't really make you feel any better. You're like, \"Okay, but remember how last week you were all mercilessly mocking and humiliating me for wearing that same hairstyle? Can we at least sit down and talk about that? Can you maybe admit that you were mean to me?\" And all the popular kids are like. \"Hm, I don't know if that's really a good idea. What's past is past, and I think talking about it would just cause more problems and be counterproductive. Besides, you should just be happy we don't hate you anymore! Isn't that enough for you?\" If you were that kid, you'd probably feel kinda pissed, right? This is basically how a lot of people feel when it comes to the whole hair\/cultural appropriation issue.","human_ref_B":"Did you know that once upon a time, a white person wearing a black hair style in a movie was used as evidence to allow an actual African American person wearing their hair in the same style to be fired because of said hairstyle? https:\/\/youtu.be\/Uf1c0tEGfrU?t=891","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9266.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"o5mr8q","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: the argument about black hairstyles on white people can be counterproductive I have seen so much discourse about this lately (mostly from Americans) where they say that white people, even those with textured hair cannot braid it in a protective style. More so I have seen black owned businesses that will not sell to any white people. More and more I see people calling white people with locks in their hair racist if they call them dread locks despite their own cultures having the exact same style only with a different name. I think hyper-focusing on hair and calling people racist for it takes away from the severity of actual prejudice not to mention gate-keeping something like this only perpetuates an \u201cus vs them\u201d mentality. I am very open to changing my view if a good explanation can be granted. Thanks for reading","c_root_id_A":"h2nv4z0","c_root_id_B":"h2nltre","created_at_utc_A":1624376709,"created_at_utc_B":1624372407,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Okay, imagine you're a kid in elementary school. Maybe third grade. Every morning before you go to school, your mom does your hair in this really interesting, unique way that's kinda been passed down through the family - your mom, your grandma, etc. The only problem is, the popular kids at school *hate* your hair style. They constantly mock you, humiliate you, call you names, make you feel like a freak or a weirdo - all because of your hair. But regardless, you don't give in, because you're still proud of your hair, despite everything. Then, one day, you get to school and find that this super popular kid - maybe her name is Cindy - is wearing *your exact hair style.* And the crazy thing is, all the other popular kids *love it.* They're like, \"Cindy, your hair is so beautiful!\" and \"Wow, your hair's so unique, how'd you come up with that?\" Naturally, you're a little suspicious. You say, \"You realize *I've* been wearing that same hairstyle for years, right? Cindy didn't invent it, if that's what you think.\" But everybody brushes you off. \"Don't be silly, hairstyles don't *belong* to anyone! Everybody's entitled to wear their hair however they want. Besides, I think Cindy's great-great-great-grandma used to have this hairstyle too.\" That doesn't really make you feel any better. You're like, \"Okay, but remember how last week you were all mercilessly mocking and humiliating me for wearing that same hairstyle? Can we at least sit down and talk about that? Can you maybe admit that you were mean to me?\" And all the popular kids are like. \"Hm, I don't know if that's really a good idea. What's past is past, and I think talking about it would just cause more problems and be counterproductive. Besides, you should just be happy we don't hate you anymore! Isn't that enough for you?\" If you were that kid, you'd probably feel kinda pissed, right? This is basically how a lot of people feel when it comes to the whole hair\/cultural appropriation issue.","human_ref_B":"Can you provide some links? I find it hard to believe Black stores refuse to sell to white people. What country do you live in? Can you provide a link for \"more and more I see people calling white people with locks in their hair racist if they call them dread locks\"? Where are you seeing this? It seems wildly outdated to me. Thanks.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4302.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"o5mr8q","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: the argument about black hairstyles on white people can be counterproductive I have seen so much discourse about this lately (mostly from Americans) where they say that white people, even those with textured hair cannot braid it in a protective style. More so I have seen black owned businesses that will not sell to any white people. More and more I see people calling white people with locks in their hair racist if they call them dread locks despite their own cultures having the exact same style only with a different name. I think hyper-focusing on hair and calling people racist for it takes away from the severity of actual prejudice not to mention gate-keeping something like this only perpetuates an \u201cus vs them\u201d mentality. I am very open to changing my view if a good explanation can be granted. Thanks for reading","c_root_id_A":"h2nc1g1","c_root_id_B":"h2q2nr5","created_at_utc_A":1624367443,"created_at_utc_B":1624415043,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Did you know that once upon a time, a white person wearing a black hair style in a movie was used as evidence to allow an actual African American person wearing their hair in the same style to be fired because of said hairstyle? https:\/\/youtu.be\/Uf1c0tEGfrU?t=891","human_ref_B":"If whites can\u2019t have dreads does it follow that blacks can\u2019t straighten their hair? Or wear eyeglasses (invented by a white guy)? Let\u2019s just drop all this identity politics bullshit and behave like adults with far more important things to worry about....please!!!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":47600.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"o5mr8q","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: the argument about black hairstyles on white people can be counterproductive I have seen so much discourse about this lately (mostly from Americans) where they say that white people, even those with textured hair cannot braid it in a protective style. More so I have seen black owned businesses that will not sell to any white people. More and more I see people calling white people with locks in their hair racist if they call them dread locks despite their own cultures having the exact same style only with a different name. I think hyper-focusing on hair and calling people racist for it takes away from the severity of actual prejudice not to mention gate-keeping something like this only perpetuates an \u201cus vs them\u201d mentality. I am very open to changing my view if a good explanation can be granted. Thanks for reading","c_root_id_A":"h2nltre","c_root_id_B":"h2q2nr5","created_at_utc_A":1624372407,"created_at_utc_B":1624415043,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Can you provide some links? I find it hard to believe Black stores refuse to sell to white people. What country do you live in? Can you provide a link for \"more and more I see people calling white people with locks in their hair racist if they call them dread locks\"? Where are you seeing this? It seems wildly outdated to me. Thanks.","human_ref_B":"If whites can\u2019t have dreads does it follow that blacks can\u2019t straighten their hair? Or wear eyeglasses (invented by a white guy)? Let\u2019s just drop all this identity politics bullshit and behave like adults with far more important things to worry about....please!!!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":42636.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"47qswa","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: The traditionally dull table-knife is less practical than a sharper steak knife in most basic table settings and should be phased out I'll go further to say that I believe it to be a hybrid with a butter knife and is indeed for useful for spreading than for cutting, but being that most meals don't require spreading- it would be much more useful to set the table with a sharper knife. In terms of propriety, it is considered rude to cut things that don't need to be cut, or imply your host has not properly prepared the meal (in the case of salad, for instance), while at the same time it is rude to work too hard to cut something firm that DOES need to be cut (say chicken or lightly cooked carrots). As it is common in more formal settings to provide utensils specific to the course of the meal- I propose that dull table knives can be supplied where necessary. Otherwise, table knives should only be presented for meals which require spreading- steak knives being the preferable utensil in terms of versatility and utility. My place settings seem vestigial and ornamental at this point. What am I missing here? Why do I find myself cutting easily cut items with a fork rather going through the hassle of switching hands and cutting one piece of food at a time with a dull knife? Why can't I reserve knife usage for when it's truly needed and have access to a knife capable of performing the job whether on a potato or a tough piece of goat? Why do I put so many unnecessarily set and unused table knives in the dishwasher after a meal? Please Change My View, CMV! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0ezao9","c_root_id_B":"d0ezoa7","created_at_utc_A":1456517190,"created_at_utc_B":1456517704,"score_A":2,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"Most knife users have children, are children, or at least occasionally interact with children. People don't want to give sharp knives to kids. Dull knives are by far the most versatile cutting instrument, with that limitation.","human_ref_B":"Sharp knives damage china. It is not good manners to cut with the side of your fork in a formal setting. As such, you need something that can cut things like green beans, etc... without damaging the china. The reason one is not supposed to use a fork is that it is more likely to cause you to shoot food off of your plate by using too much pressure without something to hold it in place (because you are using the fork that should be holding it while you cut) In cases where a real knife is needed for cutting, appropriate cutlery and plates should be provided to guests. (Interesting topic BTW!)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":514.0,"score_ratio":15.0} {"post_id":"47qswa","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: The traditionally dull table-knife is less practical than a sharper steak knife in most basic table settings and should be phased out I'll go further to say that I believe it to be a hybrid with a butter knife and is indeed for useful for spreading than for cutting, but being that most meals don't require spreading- it would be much more useful to set the table with a sharper knife. In terms of propriety, it is considered rude to cut things that don't need to be cut, or imply your host has not properly prepared the meal (in the case of salad, for instance), while at the same time it is rude to work too hard to cut something firm that DOES need to be cut (say chicken or lightly cooked carrots). As it is common in more formal settings to provide utensils specific to the course of the meal- I propose that dull table knives can be supplied where necessary. Otherwise, table knives should only be presented for meals which require spreading- steak knives being the preferable utensil in terms of versatility and utility. My place settings seem vestigial and ornamental at this point. What am I missing here? Why do I find myself cutting easily cut items with a fork rather going through the hassle of switching hands and cutting one piece of food at a time with a dull knife? Why can't I reserve knife usage for when it's truly needed and have access to a knife capable of performing the job whether on a potato or a tough piece of goat? Why do I put so many unnecessarily set and unused table knives in the dishwasher after a meal? Please Change My View, CMV! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0ezz9f","c_root_id_B":"d0ezao9","created_at_utc_A":1456518126,"created_at_utc_B":1456517190,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In some ways I agree with you, as I use a serrated knife for most meals (not a real steak knife, but this). However, you are missing another key function of the knife: to push food onto your fork. A wider, more even knife is better for this than a serrated knife. So a regular table knife is better for spreading and pushing, while a steak knife is better for cutting. But oftentimes there isn't really anything hard to cut. For example, you can just push apart fish with a soft knife (or even a fork). So it really depends on what you are eating. Good steak knives are also generally more expensive, and using them everyday will wear them down more quickly.","human_ref_B":"Most knife users have children, are children, or at least occasionally interact with children. People don't want to give sharp knives to kids. Dull knives are by far the most versatile cutting instrument, with that limitation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":936.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"4bfcmv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If self-driving cars become widely accessible, the drinking age in the USA should drop to 18 I believe the primary reason that the drinking age in the United States remains higher than in other developed nations is due to our heavy dependence on transportation by car. A large percentage of the American population has limited access to public transportation. This leaves people with few options when considering how to get home after a night of drinking. Younger people are more likely to binge drink, and then subsequently make the irrational decision to get behind the wheel. The drinking age was raised to 21 primarily to combat drunk driving fatalities, and statistics show it's worked to some degree. All that to say this: **All the strongest arguments for The National Minimum Drinking Age Act evaporate once self-driving cars become readily available to the average young adult.** 32 years ago when it was passed, I would have argued in support of this legislation. Very soon, I think it will appear archaic, a meddling of the state in decisions that belong to the individual. The reason I think the drinking age should be 18 is this: **I don't believe in staggering the age at which a person gains certain rights.** If 18 is the agreed upon age of adulthood in our society, then so be it, and let all adults have the full rights and responsibility of self-determination. I look forward to discussing this with all of you. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d18n95h","c_root_id_B":"d18mmod","created_at_utc_A":1458611678,"created_at_utc_B":1458610703,"score_A":10,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Canada has a drinking age of 18 (19 in some places) and has a very similar car culture to the USA. It works fine. In fact drinking and driving is less socially acceptable the younger you are in Canada. Younger Canadians are more likely to abstain from alcohol than their parents were at the same age, and are more likely to report that drinking and driving is unacceptable than their parents. Not only that but young people have a lower rate of car ownership, so they have fewer shots on goal to start with. Your premise is flawed. The drinking age should be 18 regardless of the technological capability of the average car.","human_ref_B":"California has passed a law saying that you can't operate a self-driving car while drunk. This is so when\/if something goes wrong you need to be able to take control of the car.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":975.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286} {"post_id":"4bfcmv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If self-driving cars become widely accessible, the drinking age in the USA should drop to 18 I believe the primary reason that the drinking age in the United States remains higher than in other developed nations is due to our heavy dependence on transportation by car. A large percentage of the American population has limited access to public transportation. This leaves people with few options when considering how to get home after a night of drinking. Younger people are more likely to binge drink, and then subsequently make the irrational decision to get behind the wheel. The drinking age was raised to 21 primarily to combat drunk driving fatalities, and statistics show it's worked to some degree. All that to say this: **All the strongest arguments for The National Minimum Drinking Age Act evaporate once self-driving cars become readily available to the average young adult.** 32 years ago when it was passed, I would have argued in support of this legislation. Very soon, I think it will appear archaic, a meddling of the state in decisions that belong to the individual. The reason I think the drinking age should be 18 is this: **I don't believe in staggering the age at which a person gains certain rights.** If 18 is the agreed upon age of adulthood in our society, then so be it, and let all adults have the full rights and responsibility of self-determination. I look forward to discussing this with all of you. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d18p3sh","c_root_id_B":"d18ogkn","created_at_utc_A":1458614607,"created_at_utc_B":1458613563,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The other significant issue for keeping the alcohol\/drug use age at 21 is that, unlike most permissions granted at 18, drugs leave physiological effects that have more significant impacts on developing brains and bodies. The brain does not finish myelinating until the mid twenties, and in most people it is probably still developing important regions and connections at age 18. We also know that the earlier one tries addictive substances, the more likely it is that they will become addicted. Even if alcohol and addiction did not significantly impede the normal development of an 18 year old, it brings the culture of drinking down to an earlier age. The binge drinking culture seen in colleges may well be brought to high schools, where teens are *definitely* still developing. This has been one of the primary arguments for raising the cigarette age to 21; it prevents 15 year olds from bumming cigarettes off 18 year old high school seniors\/recent grads.","human_ref_B":"> All the strongest arguments for The National Minimum Drinking Age Act evaporate once self-driving cars become readily available to the average young adult. Just because something is readily available doesn't mean that people will actually be using that feature.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1044.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"mcj68e","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: We should wash our hands BEFORE using the toilet I wash my body daily. Most of my body is covered by clothes all day. My nether regions stay pretty clean. My hands get gross. I touch dirt, grease, people, animals, and other people\u2019s keyboards. Why would I subject my baby-making bits to all that filth just to clean my hands seconds later? This isn\u2019t to say take a leak between washing your hands and performing surgery. Specific hygiene requirements exist for a reason. In my daily life however, hand washing is to remove the germs and dirt on a periodic basis. Someone somewhere decided that hand washing should occur after using the toilet but I guess they didn\u2019t have the same relationship as Mr. Jones and me.","c_root_id_A":"gs3uxi2","c_root_id_B":"gs3x5i6","created_at_utc_A":1616626696,"created_at_utc_B":1616627753,"score_A":5,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"1. I'm guessing your view is exclusive to urination and isn't true of defacation? 2. Why couldn't we wash before *and* after? I'm less concerned with your hands being contaminated by your genitals while going to the bathroom, and more concerned with your hands being contaminated by everything else you're likely touching when going to the bathroom (e.g. toilet lid, toilet seat, flush lever\/button, bathroom doors, etc.).","human_ref_B":"People typically wash their hands throughout the day especially if there is visible dirt, grease, food, etc. While you're genitals are clean in the morning, being trapped in your clothes all day makes it a hot, moist environment perfect for bacterial growth. So touching them at varied points would necessitate a hand washing. On top of that, when you're urinating in a urinal, the there is microscopic back spray that's going everywhere. So now your genitals are covered in that hot mess and back to a hot moist environment. It really makes for a heavenly brew. Washing your hands beforehand doesnt hurt and maybe a good idea depending on your cleanliness, but doing it after is definitely required.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1057.0,"score_ratio":3.6} {"post_id":"qp9me1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: \u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I\u2019ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of *probability* and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I\u2019m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I\u2019m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I\u2019m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and \u201ctrusted institutions\u201d betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures\/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn\u2019t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the \u201cnewness\u201d of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it\u2019s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren\u2019t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge\/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I\u2019m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It\u2019s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics\/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I","c_root_id_A":"hjs928u","c_root_id_B":"hjs9n7y","created_at_utc_A":1636362303,"created_at_utc_B":1636362857,"score_A":100,"score_B":194,"human_ref_A":">I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. I mean, on some level, it's hard to argue against a view that explicitly limits itself in this way. It's almost akin to saying \"I'm not saying x is *always* wrong; I'm only saying x is wrong *in the cases where x is wrong*.\" In which case, sure. But at that point, most of the specifics of your argument are fairly tangential, right? Most people *aren't* going to say that experts are *always* right; \"trust the science\" usually just means \"trust that a pretty overwhelming majority of people who have actually studied a particular thing in detail are better-informed than people who have obvious political or personal motives and far more limited expertise.\"","human_ref_B":"Scientists open their process and results up to be criticized by other scientists. The issue is that people who aren\u2019t scientists and who don\u2019t have the base line knowledge to question anything are acting like they do because of short social media posts made by other people, who don\u2019t actually know what they\u2019re talking about. Science is built on really smart people dedicating their lives to one small subset of a field after gaining the required knowledge to do that over a decade. Then everything they figure out is peer reviewed, redone a million times, continually questioned and continually advanced until we find out more or disprove the original ideas. 99.999 percent of people don\u2019t have the basic knowledge to even talk about advanced scientific research. Even fewer have the ability to disprove it. Without peer reviewed experiments proving a point and massive sample sizes backing up wheat is being said, any info being given by a person is 100 percent useless.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":554.0,"score_ratio":1.94} {"post_id":"qp9me1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: \u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I\u2019ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of *probability* and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I\u2019m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I\u2019m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I\u2019m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and \u201ctrusted institutions\u201d betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures\/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn\u2019t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the \u201cnewness\u201d of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it\u2019s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren\u2019t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge\/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I\u2019m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It\u2019s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics\/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I","c_root_id_A":"hjscdfp","c_root_id_B":"hjsf7uk","created_at_utc_A":1636365366,"created_at_utc_B":1636367867,"score_A":19,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Trust the science does not mean trust in something or someone with blind faith. The science is built on process and evidence. Not just on blind faith, and its the processes and evidence that are being asked to be trusted for then which to help in decision making processes. As for PR. The skeptics engage in their own PR of constantly asking for perfection, but ignoring their own inconsistencies in using science when it suits them. They are more often rallying against any sort of authority rather than the science, and while yes its easy to dismiss them with the 'trust the science retort' its usually born of frustration because the skeptic often relies on the could of should of would of hindsight thinking that relies on just because something could happen does not mean it will happen. Especially in the manner in which they think, the time frame in which they think and the reasons for it. Its a convincing sale pitch but not a good argument in many instances.","human_ref_B":"Can I interest you in a Bayesian perspective? You don't come form \"A is true, B is false\", you assign subjective probabilities and use evidence and the apparatus of theory of probabilities (like the Bayes' theorem) to update them. There are no 100% established truths, there are only degrees of certainty (sometimes indistinguishable from 100% for all practical purposes). So you don't trust the experts blindly and completely, you simply keep in mind that the experts' opinion is much stronger evidence than your own. Science is not always right, but it is almost always the best we've got. Also \"being right\" is not as simple as having the right answer. If you get a test with 100 yes or no questions then knowing nothing you can still score about 50%. And not far from that: if you are wrong on every single question it might seem like you know less than somebody who always said \"yes\" but in fact you *probably* know the answers very well and just intentionally answer incorrectly. Having 0 answers correct by pure chance is less likely than winning a lottery and being struck by a lightning in a single day. So when somebody \"questions\" science, sometimes they're just saying \"no\" to the question \"is the science right this time?\" (e.g. because they don't like the answer). They're not always wrong but that means nothing, it's zero evidence. It's not the end of it, of course. The degree to which I trust science varies: I take an expert physicist's opinion on a physics question as better evidence than a sociologist's opinion on a sociology question. Known or suspected financial incentives could reduce the trust somewhat, too. Or social incentives. On the other hand, some questions aren't really settled because experts' opinions still vary a lot, and others already are but you'll still see \"skeptics\" creating the impression of a divide by finding some isolated scientists with weird and crazy ideas. And of course you could dive into the subject yourself, but without being an expert it could be hard to tell a good paper from a bad one. (Or \"never replicated because everyone just agreed with it\" from \"never replicated because there wasn't enough interest\".) I do that sometimes but usually I more trust certain blogs by people smarter than me with open discussions in comments (but not too open) where people who have *some* expertise can contribute. In the end, after collecting and weighing the available evidence (I don't usually do that explicitly but I guess I should) you get something like \"x% chance this is true\" and act on that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2501.0,"score_ratio":1.8421052632} {"post_id":"qp9me1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: \u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I\u2019ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of *probability* and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I\u2019m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I\u2019m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I\u2019m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and \u201ctrusted institutions\u201d betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures\/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn\u2019t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the \u201cnewness\u201d of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it\u2019s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren\u2019t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge\/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I\u2019m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It\u2019s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics\/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I","c_root_id_A":"hjsduho","c_root_id_B":"hjsf7uk","created_at_utc_A":1636366690,"created_at_utc_B":1636367867,"score_A":7,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":">What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science This seems to be a strawman. I've never actually seen this. What I have seen is people saying \"trust the science\" in answer to people who go out of their way not to trust anything that scientists say - be it flat earthers or anti-vaxxers. In both cases, there is overwhelming evidence contradicting the anti-science crowd that both biased results\/ interpretation thereof as well as loopholes that were taken advantage of (or any other counterargument outside of a scientific disproving) are not a rational argument against \"trust the science\".","human_ref_B":"Can I interest you in a Bayesian perspective? You don't come form \"A is true, B is false\", you assign subjective probabilities and use evidence and the apparatus of theory of probabilities (like the Bayes' theorem) to update them. There are no 100% established truths, there are only degrees of certainty (sometimes indistinguishable from 100% for all practical purposes). So you don't trust the experts blindly and completely, you simply keep in mind that the experts' opinion is much stronger evidence than your own. Science is not always right, but it is almost always the best we've got. Also \"being right\" is not as simple as having the right answer. If you get a test with 100 yes or no questions then knowing nothing you can still score about 50%. And not far from that: if you are wrong on every single question it might seem like you know less than somebody who always said \"yes\" but in fact you *probably* know the answers very well and just intentionally answer incorrectly. Having 0 answers correct by pure chance is less likely than winning a lottery and being struck by a lightning in a single day. So when somebody \"questions\" science, sometimes they're just saying \"no\" to the question \"is the science right this time?\" (e.g. because they don't like the answer). They're not always wrong but that means nothing, it's zero evidence. It's not the end of it, of course. The degree to which I trust science varies: I take an expert physicist's opinion on a physics question as better evidence than a sociologist's opinion on a sociology question. Known or suspected financial incentives could reduce the trust somewhat, too. Or social incentives. On the other hand, some questions aren't really settled because experts' opinions still vary a lot, and others already are but you'll still see \"skeptics\" creating the impression of a divide by finding some isolated scientists with weird and crazy ideas. And of course you could dive into the subject yourself, but without being an expert it could be hard to tell a good paper from a bad one. (Or \"never replicated because everyone just agreed with it\" from \"never replicated because there wasn't enough interest\".) I do that sometimes but usually I more trust certain blogs by people smarter than me with open discussions in comments (but not too open) where people who have *some* expertise can contribute. In the end, after collecting and weighing the available evidence (I don't usually do that explicitly but I guess I should) you get something like \"x% chance this is true\" and act on that.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1177.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"qp9me1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: \u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I\u2019ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of *probability* and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I\u2019m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I\u2019m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I\u2019m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and \u201ctrusted institutions\u201d betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures\/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn\u2019t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the \u201cnewness\u201d of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it\u2019s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren\u2019t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge\/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I\u2019m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It\u2019s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics\/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I","c_root_id_A":"hjsgg4g","c_root_id_B":"hjsht2l","created_at_utc_A":1636368903,"created_at_utc_B":1636370004,"score_A":6,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":">\u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous Well, I think you're mixing up scientists not following the process with people\/the media not following it because the end step of the scientific method is not simply to release results and drawn conclusions. It's **peer review**. People need to understand that real science isn't \"some expert telling us what to do\" it's multiple groups of experts repeating each other's steps and following each other's logic... and politely but mercilessly roasting each other in various publications... until peer groups agree on enough to have a consensus. That is worth trusting in. Even if it 'could be wrong' **there is nothing mankind can produce that is more likely to be correct.** Non-scientists not understanding this is what leads to people all over social media thinking they can argue with or one-up experts because they saw some clickbait ass article that linked a REAL STUDY \"ZOMG it says Guatemalan broccolini might be linked to making your dick bigger in a study of thirty eight volunteer men in their 90's with radiation poisoning in Turkmenistan who filled out online surveys!\". The media doesn't always get this either. A lot of stories make me cringe when they start with with that same sort of line like \"A recent study suggests...\" and they're more interested in reporting first than reporting accurately so they roll with it like it means something even if the sample size is embarrassing or the methodology is retarded.","human_ref_B":"People always say \"do your own research\" but you're not really doing research you're just reading what people who actually do research conclude. Unless you're running experiments and trials that are then repeated and verified by people in your field you're not doing \"research\". At the end of the day the most you can do is read and evaluate data and if people knew how to do that we wouldn't be having these conversations about covid or climate change because people would unanimously agree they are problems.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1101.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"qp9me1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: \u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I\u2019ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of *probability* and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I\u2019m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I\u2019m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I\u2019m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and \u201ctrusted institutions\u201d betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures\/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn\u2019t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the \u201cnewness\u201d of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it\u2019s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren\u2019t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge\/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I\u2019m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It\u2019s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics\/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I","c_root_id_A":"hjsht2l","c_root_id_B":"hjsduho","created_at_utc_A":1636370004,"created_at_utc_B":1636366690,"score_A":14,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"People always say \"do your own research\" but you're not really doing research you're just reading what people who actually do research conclude. Unless you're running experiments and trials that are then repeated and verified by people in your field you're not doing \"research\". At the end of the day the most you can do is read and evaluate data and if people knew how to do that we wouldn't be having these conversations about covid or climate change because people would unanimously agree they are problems.","human_ref_B":">What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science This seems to be a strawman. I've never actually seen this. What I have seen is people saying \"trust the science\" in answer to people who go out of their way not to trust anything that scientists say - be it flat earthers or anti-vaxxers. In both cases, there is overwhelming evidence contradicting the anti-science crowd that both biased results\/ interpretation thereof as well as loopholes that were taken advantage of (or any other counterargument outside of a scientific disproving) are not a rational argument against \"trust the science\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3314.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"qp9me1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: \u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I\u2019ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of *probability* and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I\u2019m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I\u2019m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I\u2019m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and \u201ctrusted institutions\u201d betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures\/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn\u2019t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the \u201cnewness\u201d of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it\u2019s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren\u2019t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge\/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I\u2019m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It\u2019s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics\/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I","c_root_id_A":"hjsgg4g","c_root_id_B":"hjth2k9","created_at_utc_A":1636368903,"created_at_utc_B":1636388279,"score_A":6,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":">\u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous Well, I think you're mixing up scientists not following the process with people\/the media not following it because the end step of the scientific method is not simply to release results and drawn conclusions. It's **peer review**. People need to understand that real science isn't \"some expert telling us what to do\" it's multiple groups of experts repeating each other's steps and following each other's logic... and politely but mercilessly roasting each other in various publications... until peer groups agree on enough to have a consensus. That is worth trusting in. Even if it 'could be wrong' **there is nothing mankind can produce that is more likely to be correct.** Non-scientists not understanding this is what leads to people all over social media thinking they can argue with or one-up experts because they saw some clickbait ass article that linked a REAL STUDY \"ZOMG it says Guatemalan broccolini might be linked to making your dick bigger in a study of thirty eight volunteer men in their 90's with radiation poisoning in Turkmenistan who filled out online surveys!\". The media doesn't always get this either. A lot of stories make me cringe when they start with with that same sort of line like \"A recent study suggests...\" and they're more interested in reporting first than reporting accurately so they roll with it like it means something even if the sample size is embarrassing or the methodology is retarded.","human_ref_B":"> I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of probability ...*do you*, though? > What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Because it sounds like you don't. What does *not* having complete blind faith mean to you, in this context? We've already established that experts are probably more likely than you to know what they're talking about, and we know that you, as an expert, *don't* know what you're talking about so isn't the reasonable conclusion here to have faith in the experts? If you're going to start questioning them, isn't it fair to say that you don't know what you're talking about, and don't really understand how questioning them would be effective or potentially find holes in their arguments, *since you don't know what you're talking about*? To further this, let's be clear that we're not saying trust *an* expert in the matter-- when people say trust the science, they mean trust the *consensus* of experts. While that can still be wrong, it weeds out any potential personal motivation to lie or edge things in their favor personally. > there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, But are you, as a non-expert who *doesn't know what they're talking about*, qualified to find those loopholes taken advantage of? Even knowing that bad-faith actors exist, the most responsible course of action is to let *other experts* vet the decisions being made-- not you personally. It seems like you're saying at the top that you understand the probability of the experts being right is higher than you being right, but then you point to isolated incidents where the experts were wrong and use that as justification not to trust them-- despite, presumably, understanding that it's still more likely that they're right in any given scenario. So I guess it comes back to me wanting this answer from you: What does not having complete blind faith mean to you, and why do you think you're more qualified to find errors or bias in work than the actual experts who actually understand the material? And remember, we're talking about a *consensus*, not about disagreement in the given expert community at large. If there is reasonable disagreement, then there's no consensus to trust. > I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth One final note: Trust the science means acknowledging that science can be wrong (or at least, experts' understanding of the science) and can change. You are *not* trusting the science if you believe the first thing you hear, and refuse to acknowledge changing standards as more information arises. That is *not* trusting the science, that is adhering to personal opinion. For instance, masks. Originally, the consensus from the experts was that calling for the general population to wear masks during the pandemic was not effective enough to warrant its cost to society and others, so trusting science meant not using masks unless you're in specific situations that call for it. That was the best call to make based on the information at hand. Then the experts' understanding of the situation changed, more information was collected and new recommendations were given that the general population *should* wear masks. Trusting in the science means acknowledging that the experts were *wrong* objectively, but had made the best recommendation possible at the time, and were now changing that recommendation based on the new information. You weren't wrong to trust the experts the first time, because they made the best recommendation they could. *You*, the layman, had absolutely no way of knowing better than the experts what the best recommendation was, so following their advice-- even though it was wrong-- was the best course of action. *Changing* your actions when their advice changed is still the best course of action. It is an absolutely intrinsic part of science that we only *think* we know what we know, and literally anything we believe we understand may turn out to be wrong. The best scientists and experts will never commit themselves fully to any understanding of anything, but will always allow room for new information to change their understanding of the science. *This* is what trusting the science means.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19376.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667} {"post_id":"qp9me1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: \u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I\u2019ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of *probability* and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I\u2019m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I\u2019m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I\u2019m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and \u201ctrusted institutions\u201d betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures\/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn\u2019t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the \u201cnewness\u201d of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it\u2019s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren\u2019t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge\/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I\u2019m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It\u2019s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics\/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I","c_root_id_A":"hjsduho","c_root_id_B":"hjth2k9","created_at_utc_A":1636366690,"created_at_utc_B":1636388279,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":">What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science This seems to be a strawman. I've never actually seen this. What I have seen is people saying \"trust the science\" in answer to people who go out of their way not to trust anything that scientists say - be it flat earthers or anti-vaxxers. In both cases, there is overwhelming evidence contradicting the anti-science crowd that both biased results\/ interpretation thereof as well as loopholes that were taken advantage of (or any other counterargument outside of a scientific disproving) are not a rational argument against \"trust the science\".","human_ref_B":"> I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of probability ...*do you*, though? > What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Because it sounds like you don't. What does *not* having complete blind faith mean to you, in this context? We've already established that experts are probably more likely than you to know what they're talking about, and we know that you, as an expert, *don't* know what you're talking about so isn't the reasonable conclusion here to have faith in the experts? If you're going to start questioning them, isn't it fair to say that you don't know what you're talking about, and don't really understand how questioning them would be effective or potentially find holes in their arguments, *since you don't know what you're talking about*? To further this, let's be clear that we're not saying trust *an* expert in the matter-- when people say trust the science, they mean trust the *consensus* of experts. While that can still be wrong, it weeds out any potential personal motivation to lie or edge things in their favor personally. > there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, But are you, as a non-expert who *doesn't know what they're talking about*, qualified to find those loopholes taken advantage of? Even knowing that bad-faith actors exist, the most responsible course of action is to let *other experts* vet the decisions being made-- not you personally. It seems like you're saying at the top that you understand the probability of the experts being right is higher than you being right, but then you point to isolated incidents where the experts were wrong and use that as justification not to trust them-- despite, presumably, understanding that it's still more likely that they're right in any given scenario. So I guess it comes back to me wanting this answer from you: What does not having complete blind faith mean to you, and why do you think you're more qualified to find errors or bias in work than the actual experts who actually understand the material? And remember, we're talking about a *consensus*, not about disagreement in the given expert community at large. If there is reasonable disagreement, then there's no consensus to trust. > I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth One final note: Trust the science means acknowledging that science can be wrong (or at least, experts' understanding of the science) and can change. You are *not* trusting the science if you believe the first thing you hear, and refuse to acknowledge changing standards as more information arises. That is *not* trusting the science, that is adhering to personal opinion. For instance, masks. Originally, the consensus from the experts was that calling for the general population to wear masks during the pandemic was not effective enough to warrant its cost to society and others, so trusting science meant not using masks unless you're in specific situations that call for it. That was the best call to make based on the information at hand. Then the experts' understanding of the situation changed, more information was collected and new recommendations were given that the general population *should* wear masks. Trusting in the science means acknowledging that the experts were *wrong* objectively, but had made the best recommendation possible at the time, and were now changing that recommendation based on the new information. You weren't wrong to trust the experts the first time, because they made the best recommendation they could. *You*, the layman, had absolutely no way of knowing better than the experts what the best recommendation was, so following their advice-- even though it was wrong-- was the best course of action. *Changing* your actions when their advice changed is still the best course of action. It is an absolutely intrinsic part of science that we only *think* we know what we know, and literally anything we believe we understand may turn out to be wrong. The best scientists and experts will never commit themselves fully to any understanding of anything, but will always allow room for new information to change their understanding of the science. *This* is what trusting the science means.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21589.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571} {"post_id":"qp9me1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: \u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I\u2019ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of *probability* and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I\u2019m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I\u2019m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I\u2019m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and \u201ctrusted institutions\u201d betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures\/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn\u2019t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the \u201cnewness\u201d of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it\u2019s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren\u2019t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge\/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I\u2019m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It\u2019s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics\/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I","c_root_id_A":"hjsoqm5","c_root_id_B":"hjth2k9","created_at_utc_A":1636374848,"created_at_utc_B":1636388279,"score_A":5,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Thank you for a really interesting topic that is current and well thought out. It is both common to hear \"trust the science\" as well as \"I go with my gut on this\". The scientific method: The scientific method is our best way, over the long term, of reaching a model of \"how things work\" as free from bias as possible and that can make accurate predictions. It involves well written hypotheses, that can be tested, reproduced, peer reviewed and can make the best predictions. The human problem: I say \"long term\" as it can be a bumpy ride getting there - studies in foreign languages can languish hardly read, papers have a tendency to focus on positive results, research that defies \"common understanding\" or \"cultural\/religious norms\" is not funded, ridiculed or ignored. The common factor in all of these is indeed the people involved and the systems that apply pressure on them. So, given the above, scientific understanding *does* follow a process that aims to result in a body of knowledge capable of prediction, one that can be added to and built upon, *but* on any given day, in any field, an observer could find all sorts of problems of bias, repression of ideas. How to decide on where to look for evidence: All of the above is aimed at answering this question - where do we look for reasoned, unbiased, replicated and reviewed information when we have a personal decision such as how to navigate covid issues? Ultimately we have a choice: 1. We can choose based on our gut, but gut instict regarding very complex issues such as viral load, aerosol dispersion, herd immunity, vaccine side effects is ill-informed - we just don't have a body of knowledge on it ourselves and instead combine our personal fears, media influences, anecdotes, religious beliefs instead. Choosing this means choosing all kf the things that the scientific method *literally tries to eradicate* 2. We can choose scientific research and from it the overall practical conclusions drawn from it, as pertain to lessening the effects of covid on each of us and on our society. Yes this has a chance that it is not perfect, has had some bias but in no way would this be more than you would have yourself. Therefore we weigh all the issues noted about science (that it is made by people, so is flawed *but over time can eradicate those flaws more and more*) against the issues of using our own intuition, which can have all the same flaws, yet it is not kept in check and we can rarely remove our biases from our view. I like the analogy of two people trying to see who can get highest off the ground. You see a person jumping on a trampoline and another person on some home made crazy contraption with wires and material, rolling and crashing in the weeds, leaking oil. Before the advent of flight, most people would put their money on the trampolinist, but since the machine will get worked on, fixed better, try more and then others will help, carefully analyzing each time it breaks or falls until many are trying it, building on the knowledge; suddenly there are hundreds of them, flyinh higher and higher. Science is that of early flight, bumpy but give it long enough and issues get ironed out, things get perfected, models get refined.","human_ref_B":"> I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of probability ...*do you*, though? > What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Because it sounds like you don't. What does *not* having complete blind faith mean to you, in this context? We've already established that experts are probably more likely than you to know what they're talking about, and we know that you, as an expert, *don't* know what you're talking about so isn't the reasonable conclusion here to have faith in the experts? If you're going to start questioning them, isn't it fair to say that you don't know what you're talking about, and don't really understand how questioning them would be effective or potentially find holes in their arguments, *since you don't know what you're talking about*? To further this, let's be clear that we're not saying trust *an* expert in the matter-- when people say trust the science, they mean trust the *consensus* of experts. While that can still be wrong, it weeds out any potential personal motivation to lie or edge things in their favor personally. > there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, But are you, as a non-expert who *doesn't know what they're talking about*, qualified to find those loopholes taken advantage of? Even knowing that bad-faith actors exist, the most responsible course of action is to let *other experts* vet the decisions being made-- not you personally. It seems like you're saying at the top that you understand the probability of the experts being right is higher than you being right, but then you point to isolated incidents where the experts were wrong and use that as justification not to trust them-- despite, presumably, understanding that it's still more likely that they're right in any given scenario. So I guess it comes back to me wanting this answer from you: What does not having complete blind faith mean to you, and why do you think you're more qualified to find errors or bias in work than the actual experts who actually understand the material? And remember, we're talking about a *consensus*, not about disagreement in the given expert community at large. If there is reasonable disagreement, then there's no consensus to trust. > I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth One final note: Trust the science means acknowledging that science can be wrong (or at least, experts' understanding of the science) and can change. You are *not* trusting the science if you believe the first thing you hear, and refuse to acknowledge changing standards as more information arises. That is *not* trusting the science, that is adhering to personal opinion. For instance, masks. Originally, the consensus from the experts was that calling for the general population to wear masks during the pandemic was not effective enough to warrant its cost to society and others, so trusting science meant not using masks unless you're in specific situations that call for it. That was the best call to make based on the information at hand. Then the experts' understanding of the situation changed, more information was collected and new recommendations were given that the general population *should* wear masks. Trusting in the science means acknowledging that the experts were *wrong* objectively, but had made the best recommendation possible at the time, and were now changing that recommendation based on the new information. You weren't wrong to trust the experts the first time, because they made the best recommendation they could. *You*, the layman, had absolutely no way of knowing better than the experts what the best recommendation was, so following their advice-- even though it was wrong-- was the best course of action. *Changing* your actions when their advice changed is still the best course of action. It is an absolutely intrinsic part of science that we only *think* we know what we know, and literally anything we believe we understand may turn out to be wrong. The best scientists and experts will never commit themselves fully to any understanding of anything, but will always allow room for new information to change their understanding of the science. *This* is what trusting the science means.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13431.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"qp9me1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: \u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I\u2019ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of *probability* and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I\u2019m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I\u2019m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I\u2019m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and \u201ctrusted institutions\u201d betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures\/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn\u2019t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the \u201cnewness\u201d of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it\u2019s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren\u2019t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge\/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I\u2019m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It\u2019s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics\/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I","c_root_id_A":"hjtlz2s","c_root_id_B":"hjsgg4g","created_at_utc_A":1636390222,"created_at_utc_B":1636368903,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"**Disclaimer:** I am a PhD student in genetics. ​ >What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. I would suggest this statement is hyperbole. It is exceedingly rare to engage with legitimately credentialed scientists touting dogmatic acceptance of an emergent scientific truth. Scientists are acutely aware of scientific limitations and the discovery of new evidence. We live, breathe, bleed, and dream about this every day. In nearly all cases, the statement you characterized is a defensive argument constructed by non-experts to obfuscate the boundaries between well-evidenced phenomena while shielding themselves under the veneer of scientific skepticism. The reality is, the data and rationale are publicly available for anyone to interpret, test, or scientifically falsify. Scientific processes are completely antithetical to dogmatism and blind faith. The characterization of science in this way, frankly, is unintelligible and born of bad-faith interlocutors. The most culpable entities for the propagation of these viewpoints are sensationalized media outlets i.e.\u2014anyone can have a platform and spread incorrect information. The sheer volume of professionally non-expert eristic YouTubers vying for viewership and committing to patently false scientific precepts is astounding. Couple that to the echo chambers of other social media platforms and insular communities, it is a recipe for enculturated egregious falsehoods about the nature of science and its conclusions. Combating sophisticated anti-science campaigns\u2014which are almost exclusively driven by political, religious, or financial motives\u2014is non-trivial. From my own anecdotal experiences, anti-science denialism has saturated the social conscious in the United States. Scientists are regularly inundated by pseudoscientific claims about their own fields of study. Initially, my approach was to err on the side of politeness and use these encounters as educational opportunities. However, responding to the same absurd claims on hundreds, or even thousands, of occasions depletes one\u2019s patience for tactful encounters. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this debacle is that the correct information is *easily obtainable* by exercising minute research efforts and critical thinking. ​ >I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. Testing new hypotheses *is* the primary falsification method for previous hypotheses. If old data are not concordant with novel data, something is wrong and the provisional theories are adjusted or discarded to account for these discoveries. ​ >On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe \\[...\\] This is not an issue about science per se. You\u2019re highlighting political failures coupled to the financial incentives of commercial enterprises. I cannot emphasize enough how many times we see data, and their associated methods, that are simply dogshit and should be summarily dismissed. Critical evaluation and testing is what we do. Unfortunately, it is difficult to correct erroneous information once it hits popular platforms. Additionally, clinical trials are phased to account for, and study, potential longitudinal harms. A huge number of trials get shut down for even the slightest infractions suggesting harm to patients. Science is not perfect. However, the attitudes expressed here are incongruent with the reality of scientific processes and the spirit of intersubjective disconfirmation. Despite the historical failures of science, *it is the most reliable system for accurate beliefs.*","human_ref_B":">\u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous Well, I think you're mixing up scientists not following the process with people\/the media not following it because the end step of the scientific method is not simply to release results and drawn conclusions. It's **peer review**. People need to understand that real science isn't \"some expert telling us what to do\" it's multiple groups of experts repeating each other's steps and following each other's logic... and politely but mercilessly roasting each other in various publications... until peer groups agree on enough to have a consensus. That is worth trusting in. Even if it 'could be wrong' **there is nothing mankind can produce that is more likely to be correct.** Non-scientists not understanding this is what leads to people all over social media thinking they can argue with or one-up experts because they saw some clickbait ass article that linked a REAL STUDY \"ZOMG it says Guatemalan broccolini might be linked to making your dick bigger in a study of thirty eight volunteer men in their 90's with radiation poisoning in Turkmenistan who filled out online surveys!\". The media doesn't always get this either. A lot of stories make me cringe when they start with with that same sort of line like \"A recent study suggests...\" and they're more interested in reporting first than reporting accurately so they roll with it like it means something even if the sample size is embarrassing or the methodology is retarded.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21319.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"qp9me1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: \u201cTrust the science\u201d ignores that science is not always a perfectly followed process in the real world and may even be dangerous (This is semi-related to COVID as this argument comes up a lot but I\u2019ve also seen this come up in responses to people that question climate change, evolution, etc). I understand the trusting of experts as more of a metric of *probability* and a crutch for the inevitable fact that most people will have either a lack of time, energy, capability, or interest for doing their own research on a topic, so I\u2019m not criticizing that. And in the end, it is more likely that people who have spent years studying a certain subject are going to, for the most part, have more accurate knowledge (at least the knowledge available at the time) than a layperson. What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. Aside from the fact that conclusions previously made can change with new evidence, there are also many cases in which scientific studies can be prone to bias, monetary influence (one example that comes to mind is studies connected to the tobacco industry that were actively misleading in the conclusions they came to about the effects of smoking, secondhand smoke, etc), just plain missing a potentially important factor, etc. I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe, or that have been approved by government agencies, but it turns out there were loopholes in the approval process that were taken advantage of, and it turns out later they were actually causing a host of medical issues for many people, after years of connecting the dots, sometimes with the issue not even being acknowledged until multiple people connected online and they all had the shared experience of having medical issues after that procedure. (I\u2019m sorry this is so vague, the main one I think of is a chrome-based leg or hip implant I believe that was causing people neurological issues, the source for this and a few others was The Bleeding Edge documentary on Netflix - perhaps someone in the comments will tell me that was all hooey though and that I\u2019m a bumbling idiot for believing a word of it LOL) Now, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to extrapolate instances in which experts and \u201ctrusted institutions\u201d betrayed trust or messed up to mean they will mess up in ALL situations, or that a specific situation must be iffy and unworth trusting - for example, with the COVID vaccines. People worry about the newness of it, and in some of the procedures\/medical devices in the documentary, the newness of it did mean that people who got in on it on the initial release of it were at more of a disadvantage since there wasn\u2019t as much information showing the dangers of it - but medical devices and vaccines could also be relevantly different where the \u201cnewness\u201d of it is not really that impactful on how much it can be trusted. Ideally, the trustworthiness of something should be decided on the details of that specific thing and it\u2019s specific traits - but again, that becomes a problem when people aren\u2019t knowledgeable and when the institutions that provide information have themselves become harder to trust. All in all, too, trusting any authority with a large amount of influence over your life completely is just a dangerous game to play. It may turn out well often, but for some, they could put themselves in the hands of someone corrupt, inept, or just become subject to a field that is still imperfect or always in development, and a set of people who believe that because they have specialized knowledge\/training that nobody outside their field could ever have a relevant question, when really they are just as human and imperfect in their knowledge as the rest of us and could be blinded by their own perception of expertise. Not saying all people in scientific fields are like this, or saying anything about its frequency, I\u2019m just saying it could HAPPEN. All in all, I get using expertise as a crutch, but not as dogmatic truth, because expertise is usually not perfect. It\u2019s also possible that some of this is an issue of semantics\/people not arguing their position very well or not wanting to put in the effort of explaining a specific scientific position all the time - I might understand that more as just a blip, and not hold anything against that as much, I don\u2019t know. I\u2019m just taking issue against the instances I have seen where the people saying that do genuinely believe that questioning science\/expertise to any degree is something only an idiot or contrarian would do. (As another note, I know some of this got more general than the original title, and there may be some things that were vague, if needed I can clarify some things to express my views better or more specifically. Apologies for not being the most organized communicator, I","c_root_id_A":"hjsoqm5","c_root_id_B":"hjtlz2s","created_at_utc_A":1636374848,"created_at_utc_B":1636390222,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Thank you for a really interesting topic that is current and well thought out. It is both common to hear \"trust the science\" as well as \"I go with my gut on this\". The scientific method: The scientific method is our best way, over the long term, of reaching a model of \"how things work\" as free from bias as possible and that can make accurate predictions. It involves well written hypotheses, that can be tested, reproduced, peer reviewed and can make the best predictions. The human problem: I say \"long term\" as it can be a bumpy ride getting there - studies in foreign languages can languish hardly read, papers have a tendency to focus on positive results, research that defies \"common understanding\" or \"cultural\/religious norms\" is not funded, ridiculed or ignored. The common factor in all of these is indeed the people involved and the systems that apply pressure on them. So, given the above, scientific understanding *does* follow a process that aims to result in a body of knowledge capable of prediction, one that can be added to and built upon, *but* on any given day, in any field, an observer could find all sorts of problems of bias, repression of ideas. How to decide on where to look for evidence: All of the above is aimed at answering this question - where do we look for reasoned, unbiased, replicated and reviewed information when we have a personal decision such as how to navigate covid issues? Ultimately we have a choice: 1. We can choose based on our gut, but gut instict regarding very complex issues such as viral load, aerosol dispersion, herd immunity, vaccine side effects is ill-informed - we just don't have a body of knowledge on it ourselves and instead combine our personal fears, media influences, anecdotes, religious beliefs instead. Choosing this means choosing all kf the things that the scientific method *literally tries to eradicate* 2. We can choose scientific research and from it the overall practical conclusions drawn from it, as pertain to lessening the effects of covid on each of us and on our society. Yes this has a chance that it is not perfect, has had some bias but in no way would this be more than you would have yourself. Therefore we weigh all the issues noted about science (that it is made by people, so is flawed *but over time can eradicate those flaws more and more*) against the issues of using our own intuition, which can have all the same flaws, yet it is not kept in check and we can rarely remove our biases from our view. I like the analogy of two people trying to see who can get highest off the ground. You see a person jumping on a trampoline and another person on some home made crazy contraption with wires and material, rolling and crashing in the weeds, leaking oil. Before the advent of flight, most people would put their money on the trampolinist, but since the machine will get worked on, fixed better, try more and then others will help, carefully analyzing each time it breaks or falls until many are trying it, building on the knowledge; suddenly there are hundreds of them, flyinh higher and higher. Science is that of early flight, bumpy but give it long enough and issues get ironed out, things get perfected, models get refined.","human_ref_B":"**Disclaimer:** I am a PhD student in genetics. ​ >What I am criticizing, though, is extending this mindset to having total and complete blind faith in science (or really any kind of expertise, though I\u2019m kind of trying to limit it to science for now because I\u2019ve seen it the most recently), and ridiculing\/lambasting people who are not in the field for questioning it. I would suggest this statement is hyperbole. It is exceedingly rare to engage with legitimately credentialed scientists touting dogmatic acceptance of an emergent scientific truth. Scientists are acutely aware of scientific limitations and the discovery of new evidence. We live, breathe, bleed, and dream about this every day. In nearly all cases, the statement you characterized is a defensive argument constructed by non-experts to obfuscate the boundaries between well-evidenced phenomena while shielding themselves under the veneer of scientific skepticism. The reality is, the data and rationale are publicly available for anyone to interpret, test, or scientifically falsify. Scientific processes are completely antithetical to dogmatism and blind faith. The characterization of science in this way, frankly, is unintelligible and born of bad-faith interlocutors. The most culpable entities for the propagation of these viewpoints are sensationalized media outlets i.e.\u2014anyone can have a platform and spread incorrect information. The sheer volume of professionally non-expert eristic YouTubers vying for viewership and committing to patently false scientific precepts is astounding. Couple that to the echo chambers of other social media platforms and insular communities, it is a recipe for enculturated egregious falsehoods about the nature of science and its conclusions. Combating sophisticated anti-science campaigns\u2014which are almost exclusively driven by political, religious, or financial motives\u2014is non-trivial. From my own anecdotal experiences, anti-science denialism has saturated the social conscious in the United States. Scientists are regularly inundated by pseudoscientific claims about their own fields of study. Initially, my approach was to err on the side of politeness and use these encounters as educational opportunities. However, responding to the same absurd claims on hundreds, or even thousands, of occasions depletes one\u2019s patience for tactful encounters. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this debacle is that the correct information is *easily obtainable* by exercising minute research efforts and critical thinking. ​ >I believe there is also a tendency for scientific studies to largely be focused on testing new hypotheses and not on looking to see if old ones can be disproved, but I don\u2019t remember much on that so I\u2019m not too sure about that one. Testing new hypotheses *is* the primary falsification method for previous hypotheses. If old data are not concordant with novel data, something is wrong and the provisional theories are adjusted or discarded to account for these discoveries. ​ >On a semi-related note, there have also been examples of medical procedures touted as being safe \\[...\\] This is not an issue about science per se. You\u2019re highlighting political failures coupled to the financial incentives of commercial enterprises. I cannot emphasize enough how many times we see data, and their associated methods, that are simply dogshit and should be summarily dismissed. Critical evaluation and testing is what we do. Unfortunately, it is difficult to correct erroneous information once it hits popular platforms. Additionally, clinical trials are phased to account for, and study, potential longitudinal harms. A huge number of trials get shut down for even the slightest infractions suggesting harm to patients. Science is not perfect. However, the attitudes expressed here are incongruent with the reality of scientific processes and the spirit of intersubjective disconfirmation. Despite the historical failures of science, *it is the most reliable system for accurate beliefs.*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15374.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"5kg432","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Change my view thatSupposing white (majority) privilege is real, I have no extra duty to right a systemic wrong beyond treating everyone with kindness and fairness. So, accepting that white privilege is an phenomenon that exists in the world, I would describe it as characteristically made up of individuals, usually, but not always, influenced subconsciously by attitudes held by the people of previous generations that raised them. A person cannot control subconscious attitudes or emotions and can only be responsible for attitudes that they have control over. So then, a person cannot be ethically responsible for actions or attitudes of which they are not cognizant. So if the majority of racial biases that exist in America today are subconscious, then these individuals are not ethically responsible for unfairness that results. If a person is aware that people of color experience bias from many people who are biased either consciously or unconsciously, we may believe that people have a positive duty to help correct for this unfairness. But how would a person go about doing this? I'll define being fair as refraining from taking from or depriving someone of something they deserve or failing to give or make available to someone something that they deserve. Taking the example of being an employer looking through job r\u00e9sum\u00e9s, the hiring manager knows that they likely have some biases that they can't be aware of or even they may be aware. They want to be as fair as possible to all people who apply, so how can they compensate for certain challenges that they know people of color face in particular? A common option may be the idea of making a quota for people of color in the company and making sure to hire that amount not matter what, except in some extreme circumstances. But while this may seem fair on the face, the classic criticism of this policy is that it ends up being unfair to other individuals who's lives an wellbeing is just as valuable as a person of color's. Since our goal is to be as fair as possible to all applicants, this course of action wont due. So if we can't help increase fairness for people of color without being unfair to others, then it seems that the only way to help create fairness is to simply be kind and fair to all. **shit, i've run out of characters. Please ask for clarification if needed** **A common objection to this critique of these types of policies, taken by groups or individuals, is that racism is defined as discrimination, plus power, and therefore, a PoC passed over for a position would likely be worse off than a member of a different group. I dont believe that this is a compelling critique for the following reasons: > our definition of fairness or justice, which of course may be disputed, does not and should not, I believe, take into account the projected outcome of certain actions beyond base justice. The logic of this sort of act utilitarianism allows us to justify abhorrent actions and policies in the name of righting social wrongs in order to create fairness. For example, if it were a certainty that decimating the asian population of the united states would make for much more fairness, and therefore, happiness in the county, by the reasoning of act utilitarianism, we could justify this. However, In the west I think we can agree that we believe fairness and justice in our society as checks on our actions. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dbnpm4j","c_root_id_B":"dbnppyd","created_at_utc_A":1482793552,"created_at_utc_B":1482793724,"score_A":3,"score_B":138,"human_ref_A":"Systemic anything implies that it's not just collective consciousness\/culture but actually enshrined into laws and regulations. If you believe it is systemic, you are obligated to actively support policies that re-balance things. I'm thinking equal representation, for example. You should want to see 50% women in government and business leadership as well as proportional representation of visible minorities.","human_ref_B":"If you read MLKs letter from the Birmingham Jail, which is pretty much his most complete and persuasive manifesto, he says his goal isn't to persuade the die hard KKK lord to change his ways but just get the white guy who knows its wrong to lynch people and what not, but doesn't do or say anything to actually speak up. Simply not being bad in your little corner of the world isn't fighting the power, but enabling it. https:\/\/web.cn.edu\/kwheeler\/documents\/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf","labels":0,"seconds_difference":172.0,"score_ratio":46.0} {"post_id":"5kg432","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Change my view thatSupposing white (majority) privilege is real, I have no extra duty to right a systemic wrong beyond treating everyone with kindness and fairness. So, accepting that white privilege is an phenomenon that exists in the world, I would describe it as characteristically made up of individuals, usually, but not always, influenced subconsciously by attitudes held by the people of previous generations that raised them. A person cannot control subconscious attitudes or emotions and can only be responsible for attitudes that they have control over. So then, a person cannot be ethically responsible for actions or attitudes of which they are not cognizant. So if the majority of racial biases that exist in America today are subconscious, then these individuals are not ethically responsible for unfairness that results. If a person is aware that people of color experience bias from many people who are biased either consciously or unconsciously, we may believe that people have a positive duty to help correct for this unfairness. But how would a person go about doing this? I'll define being fair as refraining from taking from or depriving someone of something they deserve or failing to give or make available to someone something that they deserve. Taking the example of being an employer looking through job r\u00e9sum\u00e9s, the hiring manager knows that they likely have some biases that they can't be aware of or even they may be aware. They want to be as fair as possible to all people who apply, so how can they compensate for certain challenges that they know people of color face in particular? A common option may be the idea of making a quota for people of color in the company and making sure to hire that amount not matter what, except in some extreme circumstances. But while this may seem fair on the face, the classic criticism of this policy is that it ends up being unfair to other individuals who's lives an wellbeing is just as valuable as a person of color's. Since our goal is to be as fair as possible to all applicants, this course of action wont due. So if we can't help increase fairness for people of color without being unfair to others, then it seems that the only way to help create fairness is to simply be kind and fair to all. **shit, i've run out of characters. Please ask for clarification if needed** **A common objection to this critique of these types of policies, taken by groups or individuals, is that racism is defined as discrimination, plus power, and therefore, a PoC passed over for a position would likely be worse off than a member of a different group. I dont believe that this is a compelling critique for the following reasons: > our definition of fairness or justice, which of course may be disputed, does not and should not, I believe, take into account the projected outcome of certain actions beyond base justice. The logic of this sort of act utilitarianism allows us to justify abhorrent actions and policies in the name of righting social wrongs in order to create fairness. For example, if it were a certainty that decimating the asian population of the united states would make for much more fairness, and therefore, happiness in the county, by the reasoning of act utilitarianism, we could justify this. However, In the west I think we can agree that we believe fairness and justice in our society as checks on our actions. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dbnqbgm","c_root_id_B":"dbnr1i6","created_at_utc_A":1482794675,"created_at_utc_B":1482795837,"score_A":9,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"> A person cannot control subconscious attitudes or emotions and can only be responsible for attitudes that they have control over. This isn't really true. It is true that you can't just decide to stop having them, but you *can* train yourself. It's gradual and slow, and you'll probably never get to perfectly where you want to be, but you can move in the right direction.","human_ref_B":"> Taking the example of being an employer looking through job r\u00e9sum\u00e9s, the hiring manager knows that they likely have some biases that they can't be aware of or even they may be aware. They want to be as fair as possible to all people who apply, so how can they compensate for certain challenges that they know people of color face in particular? Two ways. One is education and one is process. By educating yourself about your biases you can recognize them when they come up. You can identify the harmful mental loops and try to prevent them. You can also work to change your hiring process to eliminate opportunities for hidden bias like \"workplace fit\" or by allowing hiring managers wide leeway in terms of starting salary. A number of very thoughtful people have come up with approaches to solve this problem that are more nuanced than quotas.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1162.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"5kg432","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Change my view thatSupposing white (majority) privilege is real, I have no extra duty to right a systemic wrong beyond treating everyone with kindness and fairness. So, accepting that white privilege is an phenomenon that exists in the world, I would describe it as characteristically made up of individuals, usually, but not always, influenced subconsciously by attitudes held by the people of previous generations that raised them. A person cannot control subconscious attitudes or emotions and can only be responsible for attitudes that they have control over. So then, a person cannot be ethically responsible for actions or attitudes of which they are not cognizant. So if the majority of racial biases that exist in America today are subconscious, then these individuals are not ethically responsible for unfairness that results. If a person is aware that people of color experience bias from many people who are biased either consciously or unconsciously, we may believe that people have a positive duty to help correct for this unfairness. But how would a person go about doing this? I'll define being fair as refraining from taking from or depriving someone of something they deserve or failing to give or make available to someone something that they deserve. Taking the example of being an employer looking through job r\u00e9sum\u00e9s, the hiring manager knows that they likely have some biases that they can't be aware of or even they may be aware. They want to be as fair as possible to all people who apply, so how can they compensate for certain challenges that they know people of color face in particular? A common option may be the idea of making a quota for people of color in the company and making sure to hire that amount not matter what, except in some extreme circumstances. But while this may seem fair on the face, the classic criticism of this policy is that it ends up being unfair to other individuals who's lives an wellbeing is just as valuable as a person of color's. Since our goal is to be as fair as possible to all applicants, this course of action wont due. So if we can't help increase fairness for people of color without being unfair to others, then it seems that the only way to help create fairness is to simply be kind and fair to all. **shit, i've run out of characters. Please ask for clarification if needed** **A common objection to this critique of these types of policies, taken by groups or individuals, is that racism is defined as discrimination, plus power, and therefore, a PoC passed over for a position would likely be worse off than a member of a different group. I dont believe that this is a compelling critique for the following reasons: > our definition of fairness or justice, which of course may be disputed, does not and should not, I believe, take into account the projected outcome of certain actions beyond base justice. The logic of this sort of act utilitarianism allows us to justify abhorrent actions and policies in the name of righting social wrongs in order to create fairness. For example, if it were a certainty that decimating the asian population of the united states would make for much more fairness, and therefore, happiness in the county, by the reasoning of act utilitarianism, we could justify this. However, In the west I think we can agree that we believe fairness and justice in our society as checks on our actions. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dbnpm4j","c_root_id_B":"dbnr1i6","created_at_utc_A":1482793552,"created_at_utc_B":1482795837,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Systemic anything implies that it's not just collective consciousness\/culture but actually enshrined into laws and regulations. If you believe it is systemic, you are obligated to actively support policies that re-balance things. I'm thinking equal representation, for example. You should want to see 50% women in government and business leadership as well as proportional representation of visible minorities.","human_ref_B":"> Taking the example of being an employer looking through job r\u00e9sum\u00e9s, the hiring manager knows that they likely have some biases that they can't be aware of or even they may be aware. They want to be as fair as possible to all people who apply, so how can they compensate for certain challenges that they know people of color face in particular? Two ways. One is education and one is process. By educating yourself about your biases you can recognize them when they come up. You can identify the harmful mental loops and try to prevent them. You can also work to change your hiring process to eliminate opportunities for hidden bias like \"workplace fit\" or by allowing hiring managers wide leeway in terms of starting salary. A number of very thoughtful people have come up with approaches to solve this problem that are more nuanced than quotas.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2285.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"5kg432","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Change my view thatSupposing white (majority) privilege is real, I have no extra duty to right a systemic wrong beyond treating everyone with kindness and fairness. So, accepting that white privilege is an phenomenon that exists in the world, I would describe it as characteristically made up of individuals, usually, but not always, influenced subconsciously by attitudes held by the people of previous generations that raised them. A person cannot control subconscious attitudes or emotions and can only be responsible for attitudes that they have control over. So then, a person cannot be ethically responsible for actions or attitudes of which they are not cognizant. So if the majority of racial biases that exist in America today are subconscious, then these individuals are not ethically responsible for unfairness that results. If a person is aware that people of color experience bias from many people who are biased either consciously or unconsciously, we may believe that people have a positive duty to help correct for this unfairness. But how would a person go about doing this? I'll define being fair as refraining from taking from or depriving someone of something they deserve or failing to give or make available to someone something that they deserve. Taking the example of being an employer looking through job r\u00e9sum\u00e9s, the hiring manager knows that they likely have some biases that they can't be aware of or even they may be aware. They want to be as fair as possible to all people who apply, so how can they compensate for certain challenges that they know people of color face in particular? A common option may be the idea of making a quota for people of color in the company and making sure to hire that amount not matter what, except in some extreme circumstances. But while this may seem fair on the face, the classic criticism of this policy is that it ends up being unfair to other individuals who's lives an wellbeing is just as valuable as a person of color's. Since our goal is to be as fair as possible to all applicants, this course of action wont due. So if we can't help increase fairness for people of color without being unfair to others, then it seems that the only way to help create fairness is to simply be kind and fair to all. **shit, i've run out of characters. Please ask for clarification if needed** **A common objection to this critique of these types of policies, taken by groups or individuals, is that racism is defined as discrimination, plus power, and therefore, a PoC passed over for a position would likely be worse off than a member of a different group. I dont believe that this is a compelling critique for the following reasons: > our definition of fairness or justice, which of course may be disputed, does not and should not, I believe, take into account the projected outcome of certain actions beyond base justice. The logic of this sort of act utilitarianism allows us to justify abhorrent actions and policies in the name of righting social wrongs in order to create fairness. For example, if it were a certainty that decimating the asian population of the united states would make for much more fairness, and therefore, happiness in the county, by the reasoning of act utilitarianism, we could justify this. However, In the west I think we can agree that we believe fairness and justice in our society as checks on our actions. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dbnpm4j","c_root_id_B":"dbnqbgm","created_at_utc_A":1482793552,"created_at_utc_B":1482794675,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Systemic anything implies that it's not just collective consciousness\/culture but actually enshrined into laws and regulations. If you believe it is systemic, you are obligated to actively support policies that re-balance things. I'm thinking equal representation, for example. You should want to see 50% women in government and business leadership as well as proportional representation of visible minorities.","human_ref_B":"> A person cannot control subconscious attitudes or emotions and can only be responsible for attitudes that they have control over. This isn't really true. It is true that you can't just decide to stop having them, but you *can* train yourself. It's gradual and slow, and you'll probably never get to perfectly where you want to be, but you can move in the right direction.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1123.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"lrz9gc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: it is not particularly risky to permit a person who has been convicted of a drug offence or another criminal offence (such as a fraud or other dishonesty offence) to work with children. Everyone makes mistakes and having committed a drug or other offence does not automatically mean that the person is a risk to children or cannot make sound decisions. This is particularly so if the offending occurred many years prior. Past offending behaviour is particularly of less relevance to an assessment of a person\u2019s character if the person committed the offence for understandable reasons. For example, fear of safety, misunderstanding, environmental protection, protection of others, including animals etc. If it is suggested that a person with a criminal history is not a person of suitable character to care for children, there should be good reason (as opposed to mere speculation).","c_root_id_A":"goof289","c_root_id_B":"goocyvw","created_at_utc_A":1614233600,"created_at_utc_B":1614232112,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"As humans, we are required to process huge amounts of incoming information every day. To cope with that flow of data, we develop shortcuts: pattern recognition, biases, habits, etc. In the situation you described, the presence of a criminal record gives guardians an easy shortcut: \"If this person has offended before in another area, they might offend in this area.\" It's a quick, easy bias that allows the guardian to reduce the amount of information they have to process (the number of potential childcare workers, for example). Sometimes the bias will accurately reflect the truth, sometimes it won't, but that's not what's primarily important to people who hold biases. S*peed* is.","human_ref_B":"If you were an organization entrusted with care of other people's children, wouldn't you naturally be risk averse regarding the individuals you hire? The consequences of one bad employee are potentially catastrophic. Employers have every incentive to play it safe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1488.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"lrz9gc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: it is not particularly risky to permit a person who has been convicted of a drug offence or another criminal offence (such as a fraud or other dishonesty offence) to work with children. Everyone makes mistakes and having committed a drug or other offence does not automatically mean that the person is a risk to children or cannot make sound decisions. This is particularly so if the offending occurred many years prior. Past offending behaviour is particularly of less relevance to an assessment of a person\u2019s character if the person committed the offence for understandable reasons. For example, fear of safety, misunderstanding, environmental protection, protection of others, including animals etc. If it is suggested that a person with a criminal history is not a person of suitable character to care for children, there should be good reason (as opposed to mere speculation).","c_root_id_A":"goocvf2","c_root_id_B":"goof289","created_at_utc_A":1614232046,"created_at_utc_B":1614233600,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"When I leave my child at at a daycare or preschool, I am putting complete faith in all of the staff there that my child will be safe and not mistreated. They aren't giving me a background check on the employees so how do I judge which criminals I can trust with my kid? If I am given the option of a facility that may have employees with criminal records and a facility where a clean background check is required, I'll take the clean one everytime.","human_ref_B":"As humans, we are required to process huge amounts of incoming information every day. To cope with that flow of data, we develop shortcuts: pattern recognition, biases, habits, etc. In the situation you described, the presence of a criminal record gives guardians an easy shortcut: \"If this person has offended before in another area, they might offend in this area.\" It's a quick, easy bias that allows the guardian to reduce the amount of information they have to process (the number of potential childcare workers, for example). Sometimes the bias will accurately reflect the truth, sometimes it won't, but that's not what's primarily important to people who hold biases. S*peed* is.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1554.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"lrz9gc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: it is not particularly risky to permit a person who has been convicted of a drug offence or another criminal offence (such as a fraud or other dishonesty offence) to work with children. Everyone makes mistakes and having committed a drug or other offence does not automatically mean that the person is a risk to children or cannot make sound decisions. This is particularly so if the offending occurred many years prior. Past offending behaviour is particularly of less relevance to an assessment of a person\u2019s character if the person committed the offence for understandable reasons. For example, fear of safety, misunderstanding, environmental protection, protection of others, including animals etc. If it is suggested that a person with a criminal history is not a person of suitable character to care for children, there should be good reason (as opposed to mere speculation).","c_root_id_A":"goof289","c_root_id_B":"goobyhg","created_at_utc_A":1614233600,"created_at_utc_B":1614231425,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As humans, we are required to process huge amounts of incoming information every day. To cope with that flow of data, we develop shortcuts: pattern recognition, biases, habits, etc. In the situation you described, the presence of a criminal record gives guardians an easy shortcut: \"If this person has offended before in another area, they might offend in this area.\" It's a quick, easy bias that allows the guardian to reduce the amount of information they have to process (the number of potential childcare workers, for example). Sometimes the bias will accurately reflect the truth, sometimes it won't, but that's not what's primarily important to people who hold biases. S*peed* is.","human_ref_B":"If they committed the offense for \u201cunderstandable reasons\u201d, they wouldn\u2019t be sitting in a prison cell.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2175.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"lrz9gc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: it is not particularly risky to permit a person who has been convicted of a drug offence or another criminal offence (such as a fraud or other dishonesty offence) to work with children. Everyone makes mistakes and having committed a drug or other offence does not automatically mean that the person is a risk to children or cannot make sound decisions. This is particularly so if the offending occurred many years prior. Past offending behaviour is particularly of less relevance to an assessment of a person\u2019s character if the person committed the offence for understandable reasons. For example, fear of safety, misunderstanding, environmental protection, protection of others, including animals etc. If it is suggested that a person with a criminal history is not a person of suitable character to care for children, there should be good reason (as opposed to mere speculation).","c_root_id_A":"goocyvw","c_root_id_B":"goocvf2","created_at_utc_A":1614232112,"created_at_utc_B":1614232046,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If you were an organization entrusted with care of other people's children, wouldn't you naturally be risk averse regarding the individuals you hire? The consequences of one bad employee are potentially catastrophic. Employers have every incentive to play it safe.","human_ref_B":"When I leave my child at at a daycare or preschool, I am putting complete faith in all of the staff there that my child will be safe and not mistreated. They aren't giving me a background check on the employees so how do I judge which criminals I can trust with my kid? If I am given the option of a facility that may have employees with criminal records and a facility where a clean background check is required, I'll take the clean one everytime.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":66.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"lrz9gc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: it is not particularly risky to permit a person who has been convicted of a drug offence or another criminal offence (such as a fraud or other dishonesty offence) to work with children. Everyone makes mistakes and having committed a drug or other offence does not automatically mean that the person is a risk to children or cannot make sound decisions. This is particularly so if the offending occurred many years prior. Past offending behaviour is particularly of less relevance to an assessment of a person\u2019s character if the person committed the offence for understandable reasons. For example, fear of safety, misunderstanding, environmental protection, protection of others, including animals etc. If it is suggested that a person with a criminal history is not a person of suitable character to care for children, there should be good reason (as opposed to mere speculation).","c_root_id_A":"goocyvw","c_root_id_B":"goobyhg","created_at_utc_A":1614232112,"created_at_utc_B":1614231425,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If you were an organization entrusted with care of other people's children, wouldn't you naturally be risk averse regarding the individuals you hire? The consequences of one bad employee are potentially catastrophic. Employers have every incentive to play it safe.","human_ref_B":"If they committed the offense for \u201cunderstandable reasons\u201d, they wouldn\u2019t be sitting in a prison cell.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":687.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"lrz9gc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: it is not particularly risky to permit a person who has been convicted of a drug offence or another criminal offence (such as a fraud or other dishonesty offence) to work with children. Everyone makes mistakes and having committed a drug or other offence does not automatically mean that the person is a risk to children or cannot make sound decisions. This is particularly so if the offending occurred many years prior. Past offending behaviour is particularly of less relevance to an assessment of a person\u2019s character if the person committed the offence for understandable reasons. For example, fear of safety, misunderstanding, environmental protection, protection of others, including animals etc. If it is suggested that a person with a criminal history is not a person of suitable character to care for children, there should be good reason (as opposed to mere speculation).","c_root_id_A":"goobyhg","c_root_id_B":"goocvf2","created_at_utc_A":1614231425,"created_at_utc_B":1614232046,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If they committed the offense for \u201cunderstandable reasons\u201d, they wouldn\u2019t be sitting in a prison cell.","human_ref_B":"When I leave my child at at a daycare or preschool, I am putting complete faith in all of the staff there that my child will be safe and not mistreated. They aren't giving me a background check on the employees so how do I judge which criminals I can trust with my kid? If I am given the option of a facility that may have employees with criminal records and a facility where a clean background check is required, I'll take the clean one everytime.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":621.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"lrz9gc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: it is not particularly risky to permit a person who has been convicted of a drug offence or another criminal offence (such as a fraud or other dishonesty offence) to work with children. Everyone makes mistakes and having committed a drug or other offence does not automatically mean that the person is a risk to children or cannot make sound decisions. This is particularly so if the offending occurred many years prior. Past offending behaviour is particularly of less relevance to an assessment of a person\u2019s character if the person committed the offence for understandable reasons. For example, fear of safety, misunderstanding, environmental protection, protection of others, including animals etc. If it is suggested that a person with a criminal history is not a person of suitable character to care for children, there should be good reason (as opposed to mere speculation).","c_root_id_A":"gooqygc","c_root_id_B":"goobyhg","created_at_utc_A":1614243674,"created_at_utc_B":1614231425,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I can agree with some kind of time limitation in place. Say if someone commits a drug offence at 16, but applies to work with children at 30 with no other crimes between. But a recent drug offense is absolutely cause to bar someone from working with children, but not for the reason you seem to think. If somebody shoots up heroin, my concern wouldn't be about their character. It would be firstly, that they would turn up to work and care for children off their tits. Secondly, it would be that they may be sober in work, but carrying heroin with them that the children may find\/get into somehow. To give you an example, I once found abiut half a gram of cocaine on the floor of an old workplace. Someone had clearly dropped it without realising and if we had worked with children, that could've been a death. I also once worked with a guy who turned up to work *clearly* out of his mind every day. He fucked up all the time and was eventually fired, but if we working with children, that could've been a death. I would say drug offenses should absolutely bar you from working with children, but I can maybe agree with a time limit of something reasonable, like 5-10 years. And just as an aside, this is coming from someone who's taken *plenty* of drugs over the years and still smokes weed in a place where it isn't legal.","human_ref_B":"If they committed the offense for \u201cunderstandable reasons\u201d, they wouldn\u2019t be sitting in a prison cell.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12249.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"lrz9gc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: it is not particularly risky to permit a person who has been convicted of a drug offence or another criminal offence (such as a fraud or other dishonesty offence) to work with children. Everyone makes mistakes and having committed a drug or other offence does not automatically mean that the person is a risk to children or cannot make sound decisions. This is particularly so if the offending occurred many years prior. Past offending behaviour is particularly of less relevance to an assessment of a person\u2019s character if the person committed the offence for understandable reasons. For example, fear of safety, misunderstanding, environmental protection, protection of others, including animals etc. If it is suggested that a person with a criminal history is not a person of suitable character to care for children, there should be good reason (as opposed to mere speculation).","c_root_id_A":"goofw7s","c_root_id_B":"gooqygc","created_at_utc_A":1614234205,"created_at_utc_B":1614243674,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Sure there are many individual cases where I would be ok with it. But do I trust someone else to make that decision for me? Not if I have a choice.","human_ref_B":"I can agree with some kind of time limitation in place. Say if someone commits a drug offence at 16, but applies to work with children at 30 with no other crimes between. But a recent drug offense is absolutely cause to bar someone from working with children, but not for the reason you seem to think. If somebody shoots up heroin, my concern wouldn't be about their character. It would be firstly, that they would turn up to work and care for children off their tits. Secondly, it would be that they may be sober in work, but carrying heroin with them that the children may find\/get into somehow. To give you an example, I once found abiut half a gram of cocaine on the floor of an old workplace. Someone had clearly dropped it without realising and if we had worked with children, that could've been a death. I also once worked with a guy who turned up to work *clearly* out of his mind every day. He fucked up all the time and was eventually fired, but if we working with children, that could've been a death. I would say drug offenses should absolutely bar you from working with children, but I can maybe agree with a time limit of something reasonable, like 5-10 years. And just as an aside, this is coming from someone who's taken *plenty* of drugs over the years and still smokes weed in a place where it isn't legal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9469.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iura30r","c_root_id_B":"iurbko4","created_at_utc_A":1667395690,"created_at_utc_B":1667396379,"score_A":10,"score_B":51,"human_ref_A":"i dont understand how the death penalty is linked to crime rates?","human_ref_B":"The death penalty *should* be abolished but your reasoning is flawed. The lack of a death penalty is not why those crime rates are what they are. This is a classic \u201ccorrelation = causation\u201d fallacy. The kind of place that\u2019s going to want to abolish the death penalty is the same kind of place that\u2019s also going to be more interested in rehabilitating people, and decriminalizing petty offenses, and having a generally robust social safety net. The only universal cause of crime around the world is poverty. What are the poverty rates in those countries you listed? Low. That\u2019s why they have less crime.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":689.0,"score_ratio":5.1} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurb407","c_root_id_B":"iurbko4","created_at_utc_A":1667396166,"created_at_utc_B":1667396379,"score_A":2,"score_B":51,"human_ref_A":"If your loved one was brutally murdered would you feel the same way? You sound like a bleeding heart who has never gone through the trauma of what people are put on death row for. You believe the death penalty is evil, yet say not one word on the evil of the perpetrators to be put there. So sure of your own virtue you completely dismiss the suffering of others. But yeah sure, let's give the psychos 3 hots and a cot! John Wayne Gacy deserves to live right OP? Fuck the victims? Death penalty is NOT about preventing future crime or \"rehabilitating\" it is to remove the most dangerous,violent and psychotic people from soceity, permanently, just like they did to their victims. These folks can NOT be rehabilitated, they feel NO remorse and enjoy their time in prison. It's called justice.","human_ref_B":"The death penalty *should* be abolished but your reasoning is flawed. The lack of a death penalty is not why those crime rates are what they are. This is a classic \u201ccorrelation = causation\u201d fallacy. The kind of place that\u2019s going to want to abolish the death penalty is the same kind of place that\u2019s also going to be more interested in rehabilitating people, and decriminalizing petty offenses, and having a generally robust social safety net. The only universal cause of crime around the world is poverty. What are the poverty rates in those countries you listed? Low. That\u2019s why they have less crime.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":213.0,"score_ratio":25.5} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurdbeg","c_root_id_B":"iurg1s0","created_at_utc_A":1667397161,"created_at_utc_B":1667398354,"score_A":12,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Correlation is not causation. In Latvia for instance, was abolishing the death penalty the only change made to the legal system that year, or was it a part of wider reforms? A quick google search showed me that the death penalty for ordinary crimes was abolished in 1999, with no significant change to crime rates compared to the surrounding years. It was only abolished for crimes during wartime in 2012. Now, if I wanted to cherry pick statistics, I could also point out that in the years leading up to 2012, the general crime rate was trending down. After, the crime rate has trended up. For Norway, I could also take the extremely cherry picked statistic that executed criminals have never had another brush with the law. Is this useful to the discussion? No. Similarly, you can't compare recidivism rates due very different criminal systems and pin them all on the death penalty.","human_ref_B":"If someone is a mass murderer or serial killer is caught, and there are zero doubts that he is at fault, should the death penalty not apply to them? For an example, if we had caught the Uvalde shooter alive, I'd argue they are deserving of the death penalty. To be fair, I do think the death penalty should be reserved for such people, and we use it too freely at the moment, but I'm not sure I agree with complete abolishment of the system.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1193.0,"score_ratio":1.0833333333} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurdbeg","c_root_id_B":"iura30r","created_at_utc_A":1667397161,"created_at_utc_B":1667395690,"score_A":12,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Correlation is not causation. In Latvia for instance, was abolishing the death penalty the only change made to the legal system that year, or was it a part of wider reforms? A quick google search showed me that the death penalty for ordinary crimes was abolished in 1999, with no significant change to crime rates compared to the surrounding years. It was only abolished for crimes during wartime in 2012. Now, if I wanted to cherry pick statistics, I could also point out that in the years leading up to 2012, the general crime rate was trending down. After, the crime rate has trended up. For Norway, I could also take the extremely cherry picked statistic that executed criminals have never had another brush with the law. Is this useful to the discussion? No. Similarly, you can't compare recidivism rates due very different criminal systems and pin them all on the death penalty.","human_ref_B":"i dont understand how the death penalty is linked to crime rates?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1471.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurb407","c_root_id_B":"iurdbeg","created_at_utc_A":1667396166,"created_at_utc_B":1667397161,"score_A":2,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"If your loved one was brutally murdered would you feel the same way? You sound like a bleeding heart who has never gone through the trauma of what people are put on death row for. You believe the death penalty is evil, yet say not one word on the evil of the perpetrators to be put there. So sure of your own virtue you completely dismiss the suffering of others. But yeah sure, let's give the psychos 3 hots and a cot! John Wayne Gacy deserves to live right OP? Fuck the victims? Death penalty is NOT about preventing future crime or \"rehabilitating\" it is to remove the most dangerous,violent and psychotic people from soceity, permanently, just like they did to their victims. These folks can NOT be rehabilitated, they feel NO remorse and enjoy their time in prison. It's called justice.","human_ref_B":"Correlation is not causation. In Latvia for instance, was abolishing the death penalty the only change made to the legal system that year, or was it a part of wider reforms? A quick google search showed me that the death penalty for ordinary crimes was abolished in 1999, with no significant change to crime rates compared to the surrounding years. It was only abolished for crimes during wartime in 2012. Now, if I wanted to cherry pick statistics, I could also point out that in the years leading up to 2012, the general crime rate was trending down. After, the crime rate has trended up. For Norway, I could also take the extremely cherry picked statistic that executed criminals have never had another brush with the law. Is this useful to the discussion? No. Similarly, you can't compare recidivism rates due very different criminal systems and pin them all on the death penalty.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":995.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurg1s0","c_root_id_B":"iura30r","created_at_utc_A":1667398354,"created_at_utc_B":1667395690,"score_A":13,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"If someone is a mass murderer or serial killer is caught, and there are zero doubts that he is at fault, should the death penalty not apply to them? For an example, if we had caught the Uvalde shooter alive, I'd argue they are deserving of the death penalty. To be fair, I do think the death penalty should be reserved for such people, and we use it too freely at the moment, but I'm not sure I agree with complete abolishment of the system.","human_ref_B":"i dont understand how the death penalty is linked to crime rates?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2664.0,"score_ratio":1.3} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurb407","c_root_id_B":"iurg1s0","created_at_utc_A":1667396166,"created_at_utc_B":1667398354,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"If your loved one was brutally murdered would you feel the same way? You sound like a bleeding heart who has never gone through the trauma of what people are put on death row for. You believe the death penalty is evil, yet say not one word on the evil of the perpetrators to be put there. So sure of your own virtue you completely dismiss the suffering of others. But yeah sure, let's give the psychos 3 hots and a cot! John Wayne Gacy deserves to live right OP? Fuck the victims? Death penalty is NOT about preventing future crime or \"rehabilitating\" it is to remove the most dangerous,violent and psychotic people from soceity, permanently, just like they did to their victims. These folks can NOT be rehabilitated, they feel NO remorse and enjoy their time in prison. It's called justice.","human_ref_B":"If someone is a mass murderer or serial killer is caught, and there are zero doubts that he is at fault, should the death penalty not apply to them? For an example, if we had caught the Uvalde shooter alive, I'd argue they are deserving of the death penalty. To be fair, I do think the death penalty should be reserved for such people, and we use it too freely at the moment, but I'm not sure I agree with complete abolishment of the system.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2188.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurdxzl","c_root_id_B":"iurg1s0","created_at_utc_A":1667397435,"created_at_utc_B":1667398354,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I don't think it should be abolished, but should only be allowed in cases that are clear cut no chance the wrong person was arrested. Example the mass shooters that are caught or surrender.","human_ref_B":"If someone is a mass murderer or serial killer is caught, and there are zero doubts that he is at fault, should the death penalty not apply to them? For an example, if we had caught the Uvalde shooter alive, I'd argue they are deserving of the death penalty. To be fair, I do think the death penalty should be reserved for such people, and we use it too freely at the moment, but I'm not sure I agree with complete abolishment of the system.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":919.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurieis","c_root_id_B":"iurhg8b","created_at_utc_A":1667399353,"created_at_utc_B":1667398953,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I am not a fan of the death penalty, but I think it might have a place. Most sane people agree that punishment for crimes has 4 principle goals: 1. Deter-stop other people for doing crime 2. Remedy-fix criminals 3. Displace-keep dangerous people away from the population 4. Justice-provide some retribution for those who were harmed You have made arguments against most of those, except for #3. Which makes sense. While we keep a violent rapist in prison until we can get him to stop raping people, the death penalty is final. But, it is worth considering. Imagine we had a person that was so violent and so disturbed that they were a constant danger to everyone around them. What could we do? Lock them up in a small room for 23 hours a day for the rest of their life? At a certain point, killing them might be a mercy. We have actually had cases of people on \"life without parole\" sentences who asked to be voluntarily euthanized.","human_ref_B":"If you morally oppose the death penalty that's great, but you should focus your argument on your moral reasoning then. Firstly because most people's position on the death penalty is based on their moral views and not statistics, and secondly because your current fact-based argument is basically just throwing random numbers together and trying to tenuously connect them to the death penalty, and a lot of what you're saying isn't even factually correct in the first place. >That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. I'm assuming you got that statistic from this website or one similar, and you read the data wrong. The crime rate dropped by 63% between 2002 and 2012, they just don't have any data for the years in between. Also, Latvia functionally abolished the death penalty in 1999 and its last execution was performed in 1996; executions were technically legal as an emergency measure during wartime until 2012, but I highly doubt removing that technicality had any impact on the crime rate in either direction. And I think it's far more likely the reason crime declined so much between 2002 and 2012 in Latvia is because like the rest of the ex-USSR it went through a major economic depression in the 1990s, and has since recovered and joined the EU and so on. >\u200b Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. I didn't bother checking whether these numbers were correct but again you're throwing together statistics and not considering any other contributing factors. Is it possible the lack of capital punishment plays a role in the success of Norway's justice system? Absolutely. But Norway also has a vastly lower poverty rate than the US, a famously extensive social welfare system, and a famously rehabilitation-oriented prison system. All of those are far more likely to be the reasons crime and recidivism are so much lower. Making a direct one-to-one comparison with the US and using whether they have capital punishment as your only variable is pretty much completely useless.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":400.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurieis","c_root_id_B":"iurge4w","created_at_utc_A":1667399353,"created_at_utc_B":1667398502,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I am not a fan of the death penalty, but I think it might have a place. Most sane people agree that punishment for crimes has 4 principle goals: 1. Deter-stop other people for doing crime 2. Remedy-fix criminals 3. Displace-keep dangerous people away from the population 4. Justice-provide some retribution for those who were harmed You have made arguments against most of those, except for #3. Which makes sense. While we keep a violent rapist in prison until we can get him to stop raping people, the death penalty is final. But, it is worth considering. Imagine we had a person that was so violent and so disturbed that they were a constant danger to everyone around them. What could we do? Lock them up in a small room for 23 hours a day for the rest of their life? At a certain point, killing them might be a mercy. We have actually had cases of people on \"life without parole\" sentences who asked to be voluntarily euthanized.","human_ref_B":"I'd argue that it should be scaled back, but it makes sense to have as an emergency measure. Some violent criminals continue to be violent even after they're imprisoned. At that point, the options to deal with them are going to be either ineffective or fates worse than death, like extended solitary confinement. Sometimes a clean death is the least bad option in a set of nothing but bad options.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":851.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurb407","c_root_id_B":"iurieis","created_at_utc_A":1667396166,"created_at_utc_B":1667399353,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"If your loved one was brutally murdered would you feel the same way? You sound like a bleeding heart who has never gone through the trauma of what people are put on death row for. You believe the death penalty is evil, yet say not one word on the evil of the perpetrators to be put there. So sure of your own virtue you completely dismiss the suffering of others. But yeah sure, let's give the psychos 3 hots and a cot! John Wayne Gacy deserves to live right OP? Fuck the victims? Death penalty is NOT about preventing future crime or \"rehabilitating\" it is to remove the most dangerous,violent and psychotic people from soceity, permanently, just like they did to their victims. These folks can NOT be rehabilitated, they feel NO remorse and enjoy their time in prison. It's called justice.","human_ref_B":"I am not a fan of the death penalty, but I think it might have a place. Most sane people agree that punishment for crimes has 4 principle goals: 1. Deter-stop other people for doing crime 2. Remedy-fix criminals 3. Displace-keep dangerous people away from the population 4. Justice-provide some retribution for those who were harmed You have made arguments against most of those, except for #3. Which makes sense. While we keep a violent rapist in prison until we can get him to stop raping people, the death penalty is final. But, it is worth considering. Imagine we had a person that was so violent and so disturbed that they were a constant danger to everyone around them. What could we do? Lock them up in a small room for 23 hours a day for the rest of their life? At a certain point, killing them might be a mercy. We have actually had cases of people on \"life without parole\" sentences who asked to be voluntarily euthanized.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3187.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurdxzl","c_root_id_B":"iurieis","created_at_utc_A":1667397435,"created_at_utc_B":1667399353,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I don't think it should be abolished, but should only be allowed in cases that are clear cut no chance the wrong person was arrested. Example the mass shooters that are caught or surrender.","human_ref_B":"I am not a fan of the death penalty, but I think it might have a place. Most sane people agree that punishment for crimes has 4 principle goals: 1. Deter-stop other people for doing crime 2. Remedy-fix criminals 3. Displace-keep dangerous people away from the population 4. Justice-provide some retribution for those who were harmed You have made arguments against most of those, except for #3. Which makes sense. While we keep a violent rapist in prison until we can get him to stop raping people, the death penalty is final. But, it is worth considering. Imagine we had a person that was so violent and so disturbed that they were a constant danger to everyone around them. What could we do? Lock them up in a small room for 23 hours a day for the rest of their life? At a certain point, killing them might be a mercy. We have actually had cases of people on \"life without parole\" sentences who asked to be voluntarily euthanized.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1918.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurhg8b","c_root_id_B":"iurge4w","created_at_utc_A":1667398953,"created_at_utc_B":1667398502,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If you morally oppose the death penalty that's great, but you should focus your argument on your moral reasoning then. Firstly because most people's position on the death penalty is based on their moral views and not statistics, and secondly because your current fact-based argument is basically just throwing random numbers together and trying to tenuously connect them to the death penalty, and a lot of what you're saying isn't even factually correct in the first place. >That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. I'm assuming you got that statistic from this website or one similar, and you read the data wrong. The crime rate dropped by 63% between 2002 and 2012, they just don't have any data for the years in between. Also, Latvia functionally abolished the death penalty in 1999 and its last execution was performed in 1996; executions were technically legal as an emergency measure during wartime until 2012, but I highly doubt removing that technicality had any impact on the crime rate in either direction. And I think it's far more likely the reason crime declined so much between 2002 and 2012 in Latvia is because like the rest of the ex-USSR it went through a major economic depression in the 1990s, and has since recovered and joined the EU and so on. >\u200b Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. I didn't bother checking whether these numbers were correct but again you're throwing together statistics and not considering any other contributing factors. Is it possible the lack of capital punishment plays a role in the success of Norway's justice system? Absolutely. But Norway also has a vastly lower poverty rate than the US, a famously extensive social welfare system, and a famously rehabilitation-oriented prison system. All of those are far more likely to be the reasons crime and recidivism are so much lower. Making a direct one-to-one comparison with the US and using whether they have capital punishment as your only variable is pretty much completely useless.","human_ref_B":"I'd argue that it should be scaled back, but it makes sense to have as an emergency measure. Some violent criminals continue to be violent even after they're imprisoned. At that point, the options to deal with them are going to be either ineffective or fates worse than death, like extended solitary confinement. Sometimes a clean death is the least bad option in a set of nothing but bad options.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":451.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurb407","c_root_id_B":"iurhg8b","created_at_utc_A":1667396166,"created_at_utc_B":1667398953,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If your loved one was brutally murdered would you feel the same way? You sound like a bleeding heart who has never gone through the trauma of what people are put on death row for. You believe the death penalty is evil, yet say not one word on the evil of the perpetrators to be put there. So sure of your own virtue you completely dismiss the suffering of others. But yeah sure, let's give the psychos 3 hots and a cot! John Wayne Gacy deserves to live right OP? Fuck the victims? Death penalty is NOT about preventing future crime or \"rehabilitating\" it is to remove the most dangerous,violent and psychotic people from soceity, permanently, just like they did to their victims. These folks can NOT be rehabilitated, they feel NO remorse and enjoy their time in prison. It's called justice.","human_ref_B":"If you morally oppose the death penalty that's great, but you should focus your argument on your moral reasoning then. Firstly because most people's position on the death penalty is based on their moral views and not statistics, and secondly because your current fact-based argument is basically just throwing random numbers together and trying to tenuously connect them to the death penalty, and a lot of what you're saying isn't even factually correct in the first place. >That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. I'm assuming you got that statistic from this website or one similar, and you read the data wrong. The crime rate dropped by 63% between 2002 and 2012, they just don't have any data for the years in between. Also, Latvia functionally abolished the death penalty in 1999 and its last execution was performed in 1996; executions were technically legal as an emergency measure during wartime until 2012, but I highly doubt removing that technicality had any impact on the crime rate in either direction. And I think it's far more likely the reason crime declined so much between 2002 and 2012 in Latvia is because like the rest of the ex-USSR it went through a major economic depression in the 1990s, and has since recovered and joined the EU and so on. >\u200b Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. I didn't bother checking whether these numbers were correct but again you're throwing together statistics and not considering any other contributing factors. Is it possible the lack of capital punishment plays a role in the success of Norway's justice system? Absolutely. But Norway also has a vastly lower poverty rate than the US, a famously extensive social welfare system, and a famously rehabilitation-oriented prison system. All of those are far more likely to be the reasons crime and recidivism are so much lower. Making a direct one-to-one comparison with the US and using whether they have capital punishment as your only variable is pretty much completely useless.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2787.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurdxzl","c_root_id_B":"iurhg8b","created_at_utc_A":1667397435,"created_at_utc_B":1667398953,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I don't think it should be abolished, but should only be allowed in cases that are clear cut no chance the wrong person was arrested. Example the mass shooters that are caught or surrender.","human_ref_B":"If you morally oppose the death penalty that's great, but you should focus your argument on your moral reasoning then. Firstly because most people's position on the death penalty is based on their moral views and not statistics, and secondly because your current fact-based argument is basically just throwing random numbers together and trying to tenuously connect them to the death penalty, and a lot of what you're saying isn't even factually correct in the first place. >That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. I'm assuming you got that statistic from this website or one similar, and you read the data wrong. The crime rate dropped by 63% between 2002 and 2012, they just don't have any data for the years in between. Also, Latvia functionally abolished the death penalty in 1999 and its last execution was performed in 1996; executions were technically legal as an emergency measure during wartime until 2012, but I highly doubt removing that technicality had any impact on the crime rate in either direction. And I think it's far more likely the reason crime declined so much between 2002 and 2012 in Latvia is because like the rest of the ex-USSR it went through a major economic depression in the 1990s, and has since recovered and joined the EU and so on. >\u200b Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. I didn't bother checking whether these numbers were correct but again you're throwing together statistics and not considering any other contributing factors. Is it possible the lack of capital punishment plays a role in the success of Norway's justice system? Absolutely. But Norway also has a vastly lower poverty rate than the US, a famously extensive social welfare system, and a famously rehabilitation-oriented prison system. All of those are far more likely to be the reasons crime and recidivism are so much lower. Making a direct one-to-one comparison with the US and using whether they have capital punishment as your only variable is pretty much completely useless.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1518.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurb407","c_root_id_B":"iurge4w","created_at_utc_A":1667396166,"created_at_utc_B":1667398502,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If your loved one was brutally murdered would you feel the same way? You sound like a bleeding heart who has never gone through the trauma of what people are put on death row for. You believe the death penalty is evil, yet say not one word on the evil of the perpetrators to be put there. So sure of your own virtue you completely dismiss the suffering of others. But yeah sure, let's give the psychos 3 hots and a cot! John Wayne Gacy deserves to live right OP? Fuck the victims? Death penalty is NOT about preventing future crime or \"rehabilitating\" it is to remove the most dangerous,violent and psychotic people from soceity, permanently, just like they did to their victims. These folks can NOT be rehabilitated, they feel NO remorse and enjoy their time in prison. It's called justice.","human_ref_B":"I'd argue that it should be scaled back, but it makes sense to have as an emergency measure. Some violent criminals continue to be violent even after they're imprisoned. At that point, the options to deal with them are going to be either ineffective or fates worse than death, like extended solitary confinement. Sometimes a clean death is the least bad option in a set of nothing but bad options.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2336.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurdxzl","c_root_id_B":"iurge4w","created_at_utc_A":1667397435,"created_at_utc_B":1667398502,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I don't think it should be abolished, but should only be allowed in cases that are clear cut no chance the wrong person was arrested. Example the mass shooters that are caught or surrender.","human_ref_B":"I'd argue that it should be scaled back, but it makes sense to have as an emergency measure. Some violent criminals continue to be violent even after they're imprisoned. At that point, the options to deal with them are going to be either ineffective or fates worse than death, like extended solitary confinement. Sometimes a clean death is the least bad option in a set of nothing but bad options.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1067.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurqkhi","c_root_id_B":"iurb407","created_at_utc_A":1667402683,"created_at_utc_B":1667396166,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"That's an interesting point about Latvia, but it doesn't really make logical sense. The death penalty is absolutely a deterrent. Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Why? Because they are very strict in the enforcement of laws and the punishment of criminals - and they aren't afraid to use the death penalty to deter criminals. And holy shit, does it work. You can disagree philosophically with having a draconian criminal justice system, but the results are absolutely undeniable. You look at a lot of places, like America, where we're very soft on crime, and look at a lot of the bigger cities. They're very dangerous, and more than that, they're disgusting cesspools. When the citizenry knows a place is soft on crime, the worst people in that society can do a **lot** of damage. It seems to me that if you yourself are not a criminal, you want to live somewhere like Singapore.","human_ref_B":"If your loved one was brutally murdered would you feel the same way? You sound like a bleeding heart who has never gone through the trauma of what people are put on death row for. You believe the death penalty is evil, yet say not one word on the evil of the perpetrators to be put there. So sure of your own virtue you completely dismiss the suffering of others. But yeah sure, let's give the psychos 3 hots and a cot! John Wayne Gacy deserves to live right OP? Fuck the victims? Death penalty is NOT about preventing future crime or \"rehabilitating\" it is to remove the most dangerous,violent and psychotic people from soceity, permanently, just like they did to their victims. These folks can NOT be rehabilitated, they feel NO remorse and enjoy their time in prison. It's called justice.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6517.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurdxzl","c_root_id_B":"iurqkhi","created_at_utc_A":1667397435,"created_at_utc_B":1667402683,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't think it should be abolished, but should only be allowed in cases that are clear cut no chance the wrong person was arrested. Example the mass shooters that are caught or surrender.","human_ref_B":"That's an interesting point about Latvia, but it doesn't really make logical sense. The death penalty is absolutely a deterrent. Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Why? Because they are very strict in the enforcement of laws and the punishment of criminals - and they aren't afraid to use the death penalty to deter criminals. And holy shit, does it work. You can disagree philosophically with having a draconian criminal justice system, but the results are absolutely undeniable. You look at a lot of places, like America, where we're very soft on crime, and look at a lot of the bigger cities. They're very dangerous, and more than that, they're disgusting cesspools. When the citizenry knows a place is soft on crime, the worst people in that society can do a **lot** of damage. It seems to me that if you yourself are not a criminal, you want to live somewhere like Singapore.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5248.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"yk5944","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.61,"history":"CMV: the death penalty should be abolished ive had this view for a long time. I remember asking my mom if i could write to my senetor about it when i was like 7. Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime but in EVERY YEAR of recorded history since 1990 the murder rate has been LOWER in states that dont use the death penalty. That\u2019s not enough for you? Well in 2012 latvia abolished the death penalty. That same year crime dropped by 62 PERCENT. The death penalty is a staple of unfairness and evil that MUST be stopped. Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is.","c_root_id_A":"iurn7u9","c_root_id_B":"iurqkhi","created_at_utc_A":1667401336,"created_at_utc_B":1667402683,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> Only 20 percent of Norwegian prisoners have another scuffle with the law and end up in prison again. In the United States this number skyrockets up to 76%. Can you guess which one of these does not have the death penalty? It\u2019s Norway, having one of the best jailing systems in the world WITHOUT the death penalty. This is just another of many examples of how harmful the death penalty is the reoffending rate in Norway has nothing to do with the death penalty; it's because their rehabilitation programme is far superior to other countries. in Norway 'every inmate has his own cell, which comes with an en suite toilet and shower room, a fridge, desk, flat TV screen'. they do shit like yoga. prisoners can vote, have access to school and health care; they have the same rights as any norwegian citizen. prisoners leave their cells at 07:30am and are at work by 08:15. apart from one hour in the afternoon they are not locked in again until 20:30. https:\/\/www.google.com\/amp\/s\/www.bbc.com\/news\/stories-48885846.amp the fact norwegian prisoners have some form of normality in prison is why upon release it's easier for them to shift back to public life; that's why reoffending rates are higher in countries like the US. they don't have that. there, prison is just a temporary holding cell to deprive someone of their friends, family, employment etc. >Some of you might say that the death penalty can reduce crime i have never heard of this before. everyone knows prison does not deter crime. why? because criminals commit crime believing they won't get caught. the argument for keeping the death penalty from those who believe in it is that the punishment should fit the crime and those on death row *deserve* to be there. so whilst i agree with this on principle the argument is flawed.","human_ref_B":"That's an interesting point about Latvia, but it doesn't really make logical sense. The death penalty is absolutely a deterrent. Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Why? Because they are very strict in the enforcement of laws and the punishment of criminals - and they aren't afraid to use the death penalty to deter criminals. And holy shit, does it work. You can disagree philosophically with having a draconian criminal justice system, but the results are absolutely undeniable. You look at a lot of places, like America, where we're very soft on crime, and look at a lot of the bigger cities. They're very dangerous, and more than that, they're disgusting cesspools. When the citizenry knows a place is soft on crime, the worst people in that society can do a **lot** of damage. It seems to me that if you yourself are not a criminal, you want to live somewhere like Singapore.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1347.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"o8aga7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Gender, as a concept, is useless Gender is defined as being the social roles or personal identity of a person. But I think that there is no reason to even use gender as a way to define yourself. This is because: A) Gender is used to define social roles and your personal identity, through those roles. For people that define their gender as being something other than male or female, this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway. B) Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. I think this is entirely unnecessary. No one needed and no one needs to use things like gender to describe who they are, you just need to be yourself and not put yourself into vague categories.","c_root_id_A":"h33qocf","c_root_id_B":"h33tpp6","created_at_utc_A":1624713512,"created_at_utc_B":1624715361,"score_A":9,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Pretty much every time this is posted it\u2019s a conflation of *gender* and *gender identity*. Or some other combination of gender identity and gender expression or sex. Then this becomes a definition fight and everyone gets confused because the OP is using one word to represent two different things. For the sake of our sanity, can you distinguish each of these and see if you still hold your view: - Gender - Gender expression - Gender identity - sex","human_ref_B":">Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. Then gender is **clearly a useful** **term** for sociologists describing these people's behavior. Gender is a useful term, because it is a widely influential effect on social behavior. It's the same as with \"race\". Is being \"white\" a vague, wishy-washy category with no objective limitations, or usefulness in strictly hard science based measurements? Sure it is. Is it a useful term for describing a cultural idea that deeply influences social divisions to day? That too.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1849.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"o8aga7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Gender, as a concept, is useless Gender is defined as being the social roles or personal identity of a person. But I think that there is no reason to even use gender as a way to define yourself. This is because: A) Gender is used to define social roles and your personal identity, through those roles. For people that define their gender as being something other than male or female, this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway. B) Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. I think this is entirely unnecessary. No one needed and no one needs to use things like gender to describe who they are, you just need to be yourself and not put yourself into vague categories.","c_root_id_A":"h33qo34","c_root_id_B":"h33tpp6","created_at_utc_A":1624713507,"created_at_utc_B":1624715361,"score_A":7,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"\"this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway.\" This is wrong. There have been many cultures throughout history which have had more than two genders and assigned social roles to this third gender... https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/independentlens\/content\/two-spirits\\_map-html\/","human_ref_B":">Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. Then gender is **clearly a useful** **term** for sociologists describing these people's behavior. Gender is a useful term, because it is a widely influential effect on social behavior. It's the same as with \"race\". Is being \"white\" a vague, wishy-washy category with no objective limitations, or usefulness in strictly hard science based measurements? Sure it is. Is it a useful term for describing a cultural idea that deeply influences social divisions to day? That too.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1854.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"o8aga7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Gender, as a concept, is useless Gender is defined as being the social roles or personal identity of a person. But I think that there is no reason to even use gender as a way to define yourself. This is because: A) Gender is used to define social roles and your personal identity, through those roles. For people that define their gender as being something other than male or female, this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway. B) Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. I think this is entirely unnecessary. No one needed and no one needs to use things like gender to describe who they are, you just need to be yourself and not put yourself into vague categories.","c_root_id_A":"h33tpp6","c_root_id_B":"h33rcaw","created_at_utc_A":1624715361,"created_at_utc_B":1624713932,"score_A":21,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. Then gender is **clearly a useful** **term** for sociologists describing these people's behavior. Gender is a useful term, because it is a widely influential effect on social behavior. It's the same as with \"race\". Is being \"white\" a vague, wishy-washy category with no objective limitations, or usefulness in strictly hard science based measurements? Sure it is. Is it a useful term for describing a cultural idea that deeply influences social divisions to day? That too.","human_ref_B":"So here's 1000 people with breasts, we have the options to remove their breasts and in some (lets say 10) cases this is something they benitift from mentally but mostly they find this traumatic. Now you could say this means that for any given person with breasts there's a 99% chance removing their breasts would be a bad idea, and so we should never do it. Without gender as a concept, if we consider that all people with breasts have the same very low chance of benifiting from having their breasts removed, then we'd probably never recomend it. But with gender as a concept separate from anatomy we can split up our group into women and men by how they identify (as well as non binary people) once we've done this we can then see that the odds aren't 99% for everybody, that their higher for women and lower for men. The concept of gender becomes useful as a predictor of whether or not someone would benifit from top surgery or other treatments. Gender is a better predictor of whether someone wants to keep their penis than just the fact they happen to have been born with one. Not to mention if you don't have gender as a concept then how would you model or explain dysphoria at all? What causes some people discomfort around their genitals for example in this particular way if ananatomy is all that defines their role?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1429.0,"score_ratio":2.625} {"post_id":"o8aga7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Gender, as a concept, is useless Gender is defined as being the social roles or personal identity of a person. But I think that there is no reason to even use gender as a way to define yourself. This is because: A) Gender is used to define social roles and your personal identity, through those roles. For people that define their gender as being something other than male or female, this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway. B) Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. I think this is entirely unnecessary. No one needed and no one needs to use things like gender to describe who they are, you just need to be yourself and not put yourself into vague categories.","c_root_id_A":"h33tpp6","c_root_id_B":"h33rtvf","created_at_utc_A":1624715361,"created_at_utc_B":1624714240,"score_A":21,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. Then gender is **clearly a useful** **term** for sociologists describing these people's behavior. Gender is a useful term, because it is a widely influential effect on social behavior. It's the same as with \"race\". Is being \"white\" a vague, wishy-washy category with no objective limitations, or usefulness in strictly hard science based measurements? Sure it is. Is it a useful term for describing a cultural idea that deeply influences social divisions to day? That too.","human_ref_B":"Are you talking about getting rid of the concepts of sex and gender entirely? If so, we're losing the language to talk about the differences in male and female experiences that objectively exist and should be addressed. And if you're saying we should axe gender and keep sex, then we're just screwing over trans people. You think gender dysphoria will stop being a thing because you stop believing in gender?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1121.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"o8aga7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Gender, as a concept, is useless Gender is defined as being the social roles or personal identity of a person. But I think that there is no reason to even use gender as a way to define yourself. This is because: A) Gender is used to define social roles and your personal identity, through those roles. For people that define their gender as being something other than male or female, this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway. B) Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. I think this is entirely unnecessary. No one needed and no one needs to use things like gender to describe who they are, you just need to be yourself and not put yourself into vague categories.","c_root_id_A":"h33tpp6","c_root_id_B":"h33r12u","created_at_utc_A":1624715361,"created_at_utc_B":1624713735,"score_A":21,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. Then gender is **clearly a useful** **term** for sociologists describing these people's behavior. Gender is a useful term, because it is a widely influential effect on social behavior. It's the same as with \"race\". Is being \"white\" a vague, wishy-washy category with no objective limitations, or usefulness in strictly hard science based measurements? Sure it is. Is it a useful term for describing a cultural idea that deeply influences social divisions to day? That too.","human_ref_B":"It's helpful for people to identify shit social roles\/expectations to protest about. Many people don't use gender to define themselves, but rather a way to say, \"That shit sucks\". It's helpful to be able to differentiate between the trans people who have body disphoria and GNC (gender non-conforming) people who just hate the expectations society has placed on them due to what sexual organs they posses and not due to any actual facts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1626.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"o8aga7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Gender, as a concept, is useless Gender is defined as being the social roles or personal identity of a person. But I think that there is no reason to even use gender as a way to define yourself. This is because: A) Gender is used to define social roles and your personal identity, through those roles. For people that define their gender as being something other than male or female, this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway. B) Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. I think this is entirely unnecessary. No one needed and no one needs to use things like gender to describe who they are, you just need to be yourself and not put yourself into vague categories.","c_root_id_A":"h33qo34","c_root_id_B":"h33qocf","created_at_utc_A":1624713507,"created_at_utc_B":1624713512,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"\"this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway.\" This is wrong. There have been many cultures throughout history which have had more than two genders and assigned social roles to this third gender... https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/independentlens\/content\/two-spirits\\_map-html\/","human_ref_B":"Pretty much every time this is posted it\u2019s a conflation of *gender* and *gender identity*. Or some other combination of gender identity and gender expression or sex. Then this becomes a definition fight and everyone gets confused because the OP is using one word to represent two different things. For the sake of our sanity, can you distinguish each of these and see if you still hold your view: - Gender - Gender expression - Gender identity - sex","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"o8aga7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Gender, as a concept, is useless Gender is defined as being the social roles or personal identity of a person. But I think that there is no reason to even use gender as a way to define yourself. This is because: A) Gender is used to define social roles and your personal identity, through those roles. For people that define their gender as being something other than male or female, this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway. B) Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. I think this is entirely unnecessary. No one needed and no one needs to use things like gender to describe who they are, you just need to be yourself and not put yourself into vague categories.","c_root_id_A":"h33rcaw","c_root_id_B":"h33qo34","created_at_utc_A":1624713932,"created_at_utc_B":1624713507,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"So here's 1000 people with breasts, we have the options to remove their breasts and in some (lets say 10) cases this is something they benitift from mentally but mostly they find this traumatic. Now you could say this means that for any given person with breasts there's a 99% chance removing their breasts would be a bad idea, and so we should never do it. Without gender as a concept, if we consider that all people with breasts have the same very low chance of benifiting from having their breasts removed, then we'd probably never recomend it. But with gender as a concept separate from anatomy we can split up our group into women and men by how they identify (as well as non binary people) once we've done this we can then see that the odds aren't 99% for everybody, that their higher for women and lower for men. The concept of gender becomes useful as a predictor of whether or not someone would benifit from top surgery or other treatments. Gender is a better predictor of whether someone wants to keep their penis than just the fact they happen to have been born with one. Not to mention if you don't have gender as a concept then how would you model or explain dysphoria at all? What causes some people discomfort around their genitals for example in this particular way if ananatomy is all that defines their role?","human_ref_B":"\"this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway.\" This is wrong. There have been many cultures throughout history which have had more than two genders and assigned social roles to this third gender... https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/independentlens\/content\/two-spirits\\_map-html\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":425.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"o8aga7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Gender, as a concept, is useless Gender is defined as being the social roles or personal identity of a person. But I think that there is no reason to even use gender as a way to define yourself. This is because: A) Gender is used to define social roles and your personal identity, through those roles. For people that define their gender as being something other than male or female, this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway. B) Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. I think this is entirely unnecessary. No one needed and no one needs to use things like gender to describe who they are, you just need to be yourself and not put yourself into vague categories.","c_root_id_A":"h33rcaw","c_root_id_B":"h33r12u","created_at_utc_A":1624713932,"created_at_utc_B":1624713735,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So here's 1000 people with breasts, we have the options to remove their breasts and in some (lets say 10) cases this is something they benitift from mentally but mostly they find this traumatic. Now you could say this means that for any given person with breasts there's a 99% chance removing their breasts would be a bad idea, and so we should never do it. Without gender as a concept, if we consider that all people with breasts have the same very low chance of benifiting from having their breasts removed, then we'd probably never recomend it. But with gender as a concept separate from anatomy we can split up our group into women and men by how they identify (as well as non binary people) once we've done this we can then see that the odds aren't 99% for everybody, that their higher for women and lower for men. The concept of gender becomes useful as a predictor of whether or not someone would benifit from top surgery or other treatments. Gender is a better predictor of whether someone wants to keep their penis than just the fact they happen to have been born with one. Not to mention if you don't have gender as a concept then how would you model or explain dysphoria at all? What causes some people discomfort around their genitals for example in this particular way if ananatomy is all that defines their role?","human_ref_B":"It's helpful for people to identify shit social roles\/expectations to protest about. Many people don't use gender to define themselves, but rather a way to say, \"That shit sucks\". It's helpful to be able to differentiate between the trans people who have body disphoria and GNC (gender non-conforming) people who just hate the expectations society has placed on them due to what sexual organs they posses and not due to any actual facts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":197.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"o8aga7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"CMV: Gender, as a concept, is useless Gender is defined as being the social roles or personal identity of a person. But I think that there is no reason to even use gender as a way to define yourself. This is because: A) Gender is used to define social roles and your personal identity, through those roles. For people that define their gender as being something other than male or female, this is useless as there are no social roles for people that are neither male nor female gender-wise, because our biology has determined the natural roles of both sexes, and therefore also has determined social roles, and intersex people typically identify as either male or female anyway. B) Too often, people think of their gender as being their personality, or they choose theirs as a result of it. I think this is entirely unnecessary. No one needed and no one needs to use things like gender to describe who they are, you just need to be yourself and not put yourself into vague categories.","c_root_id_A":"h33rtvf","c_root_id_B":"h33r12u","created_at_utc_A":1624714240,"created_at_utc_B":1624713735,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Are you talking about getting rid of the concepts of sex and gender entirely? If so, we're losing the language to talk about the differences in male and female experiences that objectively exist and should be addressed. And if you're saying we should axe gender and keep sex, then we're just screwing over trans people. You think gender dysphoria will stop being a thing because you stop believing in gender?","human_ref_B":"It's helpful for people to identify shit social roles\/expectations to protest about. Many people don't use gender to define themselves, but rather a way to say, \"That shit sucks\". It's helpful to be able to differentiate between the trans people who have body disphoria and GNC (gender non-conforming) people who just hate the expectations society has placed on them due to what sexual organs they posses and not due to any actual facts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":505.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci696nz","c_root_id_B":"ci6bluq","created_at_utc_A":1402627757,"created_at_utc_B":1402633734,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"If you own a bar, and post a sign that any property left there will be considered forfeit and will be kept by the establishment, is it *theft* if the establishment then follows the policy they have posted? Remember, it's not coming and *taking* property from someone, it's *keeping* property that they left on *your* property after you warned them what would happen. There's a very big difference between taking something and keeping something that someone left with you.","human_ref_B":"It seems like you're upset about something that happened recently. Maybe there was something unjustified, maybe not. Still, at the end of the day property owners need some way to ensure that people can access their establishments and there is rarely sufficient public space available to handle that sort of thing. If you are going to move a car, then how is the owner supposed to *find* the car? If the car is being moved an appreciable distance then there's no functional difference between that and moving it to a privately owned lot. Either way you're going to have to deal with the towing company to retrieve the vehicle. The thing is, there's a few big advantages to having it moved to a private lot namely it's unlikely to be stolen, it's not going to accrue parking fines with other entities, and the clear chain of custody makes it possible to seek remedy should damage occur to the car. As far as requiring a move to a police impound lot is concerned there's a big problem, most jurisdictions don't have lots, the public land to create such lots, or the spare budget to hire someone to man those lots. In many towns and counties that would require them taking an officer off of a beat where they are doing actual work and making them a glorified parking attendant or putting off essential public works like a new school, park, or government office while finding a place to put all these random cars they don't want to deal with. Local governments have a lot to do and next to nothing to do it with, the last thing they need is to put in the middle of every parking dispute that occurs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5977.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6bluq","c_root_id_B":"ci6arf2","created_at_utc_A":1402633734,"created_at_utc_B":1402631479,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It seems like you're upset about something that happened recently. Maybe there was something unjustified, maybe not. Still, at the end of the day property owners need some way to ensure that people can access their establishments and there is rarely sufficient public space available to handle that sort of thing. If you are going to move a car, then how is the owner supposed to *find* the car? If the car is being moved an appreciable distance then there's no functional difference between that and moving it to a privately owned lot. Either way you're going to have to deal with the towing company to retrieve the vehicle. The thing is, there's a few big advantages to having it moved to a private lot namely it's unlikely to be stolen, it's not going to accrue parking fines with other entities, and the clear chain of custody makes it possible to seek remedy should damage occur to the car. As far as requiring a move to a police impound lot is concerned there's a big problem, most jurisdictions don't have lots, the public land to create such lots, or the spare budget to hire someone to man those lots. In many towns and counties that would require them taking an officer off of a beat where they are doing actual work and making them a glorified parking attendant or putting off essential public works like a new school, park, or government office while finding a place to put all these random cars they don't want to deal with. Local governments have a lot to do and next to nothing to do it with, the last thing they need is to put in the middle of every parking dispute that occurs.","human_ref_B":"Why wouldn't the police just give blanket permission to the property owners to tow vehicles away? What's better about a police impound lot compared to a private one?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2255.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6bluq","c_root_id_B":"ci68w34","created_at_utc_A":1402633734,"created_at_utc_B":1402627071,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It seems like you're upset about something that happened recently. Maybe there was something unjustified, maybe not. Still, at the end of the day property owners need some way to ensure that people can access their establishments and there is rarely sufficient public space available to handle that sort of thing. If you are going to move a car, then how is the owner supposed to *find* the car? If the car is being moved an appreciable distance then there's no functional difference between that and moving it to a privately owned lot. Either way you're going to have to deal with the towing company to retrieve the vehicle. The thing is, there's a few big advantages to having it moved to a private lot namely it's unlikely to be stolen, it's not going to accrue parking fines with other entities, and the clear chain of custody makes it possible to seek remedy should damage occur to the car. As far as requiring a move to a police impound lot is concerned there's a big problem, most jurisdictions don't have lots, the public land to create such lots, or the spare budget to hire someone to man those lots. In many towns and counties that would require them taking an officer off of a beat where they are doing actual work and making them a glorified parking attendant or putting off essential public works like a new school, park, or government office while finding a place to put all these random cars they don't want to deal with. Local governments have a lot to do and next to nothing to do it with, the last thing they need is to put in the middle of every parking dispute that occurs.","human_ref_B":"It may vary by location, but I'm fairly certain that places with private security can remove trespassers, etc. without having to contact the police at all. Plus, what prevents this from becoming \"Pay us and we'll tell you where your car is\"? Especially somewhere with little free public parking like NYC?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6663.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci67m4a","c_root_id_B":"ci6bluq","created_at_utc_A":1402624080,"created_at_utc_B":1402633734,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"How would the towing company get paid?","human_ref_B":"It seems like you're upset about something that happened recently. Maybe there was something unjustified, maybe not. Still, at the end of the day property owners need some way to ensure that people can access their establishments and there is rarely sufficient public space available to handle that sort of thing. If you are going to move a car, then how is the owner supposed to *find* the car? If the car is being moved an appreciable distance then there's no functional difference between that and moving it to a privately owned lot. Either way you're going to have to deal with the towing company to retrieve the vehicle. The thing is, there's a few big advantages to having it moved to a private lot namely it's unlikely to be stolen, it's not going to accrue parking fines with other entities, and the clear chain of custody makes it possible to seek remedy should damage occur to the car. As far as requiring a move to a police impound lot is concerned there's a big problem, most jurisdictions don't have lots, the public land to create such lots, or the spare budget to hire someone to man those lots. In many towns and counties that would require them taking an officer off of a beat where they are doing actual work and making them a glorified parking attendant or putting off essential public works like a new school, park, or government office while finding a place to put all these random cars they don't want to deal with. Local governments have a lot to do and next to nothing to do it with, the last thing they need is to put in the middle of every parking dispute that occurs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9654.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6bluq","c_root_id_B":"ci67nc9","created_at_utc_A":1402633734,"created_at_utc_B":1402624159,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It seems like you're upset about something that happened recently. Maybe there was something unjustified, maybe not. Still, at the end of the day property owners need some way to ensure that people can access their establishments and there is rarely sufficient public space available to handle that sort of thing. If you are going to move a car, then how is the owner supposed to *find* the car? If the car is being moved an appreciable distance then there's no functional difference between that and moving it to a privately owned lot. Either way you're going to have to deal with the towing company to retrieve the vehicle. The thing is, there's a few big advantages to having it moved to a private lot namely it's unlikely to be stolen, it's not going to accrue parking fines with other entities, and the clear chain of custody makes it possible to seek remedy should damage occur to the car. As far as requiring a move to a police impound lot is concerned there's a big problem, most jurisdictions don't have lots, the public land to create such lots, or the spare budget to hire someone to man those lots. In many towns and counties that would require them taking an officer off of a beat where they are doing actual work and making them a glorified parking attendant or putting off essential public works like a new school, park, or government office while finding a place to put all these random cars they don't want to deal with. Local governments have a lot to do and next to nothing to do it with, the last thing they need is to put in the middle of every parking dispute that occurs.","human_ref_B":"The biggest problem with that argument is that you're now asking private property owners to foot the bill for removing illegally-parked vehicles. Someone's got to pay. Why not make it the trespasser? Then again, most places that enforce parking *are* pulling in quite a profit on parking permits...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9575.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6bluq","c_root_id_B":"ci68f0m","created_at_utc_A":1402633734,"created_at_utc_B":1402625974,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It seems like you're upset about something that happened recently. Maybe there was something unjustified, maybe not. Still, at the end of the day property owners need some way to ensure that people can access their establishments and there is rarely sufficient public space available to handle that sort of thing. If you are going to move a car, then how is the owner supposed to *find* the car? If the car is being moved an appreciable distance then there's no functional difference between that and moving it to a privately owned lot. Either way you're going to have to deal with the towing company to retrieve the vehicle. The thing is, there's a few big advantages to having it moved to a private lot namely it's unlikely to be stolen, it's not going to accrue parking fines with other entities, and the clear chain of custody makes it possible to seek remedy should damage occur to the car. As far as requiring a move to a police impound lot is concerned there's a big problem, most jurisdictions don't have lots, the public land to create such lots, or the spare budget to hire someone to man those lots. In many towns and counties that would require them taking an officer off of a beat where they are doing actual work and making them a glorified parking attendant or putting off essential public works like a new school, park, or government office while finding a place to put all these random cars they don't want to deal with. Local governments have a lot to do and next to nothing to do it with, the last thing they need is to put in the middle of every parking dispute that occurs.","human_ref_B":"so it's cool if I park in your driveway, and let you pay to have it moved?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7760.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci696nz","c_root_id_B":"ci6arf2","created_at_utc_A":1402627757,"created_at_utc_B":1402631479,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If you own a bar, and post a sign that any property left there will be considered forfeit and will be kept by the establishment, is it *theft* if the establishment then follows the policy they have posted? Remember, it's not coming and *taking* property from someone, it's *keeping* property that they left on *your* property after you warned them what would happen. There's a very big difference between taking something and keeping something that someone left with you.","human_ref_B":"Why wouldn't the police just give blanket permission to the property owners to tow vehicles away? What's better about a police impound lot compared to a private one?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3722.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci67m4a","c_root_id_B":"ci696nz","created_at_utc_A":1402624080,"created_at_utc_B":1402627757,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"How would the towing company get paid?","human_ref_B":"If you own a bar, and post a sign that any property left there will be considered forfeit and will be kept by the establishment, is it *theft* if the establishment then follows the policy they have posted? Remember, it's not coming and *taking* property from someone, it's *keeping* property that they left on *your* property after you warned them what would happen. There's a very big difference between taking something and keeping something that someone left with you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3677.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci67nc9","c_root_id_B":"ci696nz","created_at_utc_A":1402624159,"created_at_utc_B":1402627757,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The biggest problem with that argument is that you're now asking private property owners to foot the bill for removing illegally-parked vehicles. Someone's got to pay. Why not make it the trespasser? Then again, most places that enforce parking *are* pulling in quite a profit on parking permits...","human_ref_B":"If you own a bar, and post a sign that any property left there will be considered forfeit and will be kept by the establishment, is it *theft* if the establishment then follows the policy they have posted? Remember, it's not coming and *taking* property from someone, it's *keeping* property that they left on *your* property after you warned them what would happen. There's a very big difference between taking something and keeping something that someone left with you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3598.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci696nz","c_root_id_B":"ci68f0m","created_at_utc_A":1402627757,"created_at_utc_B":1402625974,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If you own a bar, and post a sign that any property left there will be considered forfeit and will be kept by the establishment, is it *theft* if the establishment then follows the policy they have posted? Remember, it's not coming and *taking* property from someone, it's *keeping* property that they left on *your* property after you warned them what would happen. There's a very big difference between taking something and keeping something that someone left with you.","human_ref_B":"so it's cool if I park in your driveway, and let you pay to have it moved?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1783.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci68w34","c_root_id_B":"ci6arf2","created_at_utc_A":1402627071,"created_at_utc_B":1402631479,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It may vary by location, but I'm fairly certain that places with private security can remove trespassers, etc. without having to contact the police at all. Plus, what prevents this from becoming \"Pay us and we'll tell you where your car is\"? Especially somewhere with little free public parking like NYC?","human_ref_B":"Why wouldn't the police just give blanket permission to the property owners to tow vehicles away? What's better about a police impound lot compared to a private one?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4408.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6arf2","c_root_id_B":"ci67m4a","created_at_utc_A":1402631479,"created_at_utc_B":1402624080,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Why wouldn't the police just give blanket permission to the property owners to tow vehicles away? What's better about a police impound lot compared to a private one?","human_ref_B":"How would the towing company get paid?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7399.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6arf2","c_root_id_B":"ci67nc9","created_at_utc_A":1402631479,"created_at_utc_B":1402624159,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Why wouldn't the police just give blanket permission to the property owners to tow vehicles away? What's better about a police impound lot compared to a private one?","human_ref_B":"The biggest problem with that argument is that you're now asking private property owners to foot the bill for removing illegally-parked vehicles. Someone's got to pay. Why not make it the trespasser? Then again, most places that enforce parking *are* pulling in quite a profit on parking permits...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7320.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6arf2","c_root_id_B":"ci68f0m","created_at_utc_A":1402631479,"created_at_utc_B":1402625974,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Why wouldn't the police just give blanket permission to the property owners to tow vehicles away? What's better about a police impound lot compared to a private one?","human_ref_B":"so it's cool if I park in your driveway, and let you pay to have it moved?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5505.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci67m4a","c_root_id_B":"ci6d514","created_at_utc_A":1402624080,"created_at_utc_B":1402638515,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"How would the towing company get paid?","human_ref_B":"The alternative would either be the police towing your car or a private property owner suing you in court for the tow fees. Both would cost more money than the current situation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14435.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6d514","c_root_id_B":"ci67nc9","created_at_utc_A":1402638515,"created_at_utc_B":1402624159,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The alternative would either be the police towing your car or a private property owner suing you in court for the tow fees. Both would cost more money than the current situation.","human_ref_B":"The biggest problem with that argument is that you're now asking private property owners to foot the bill for removing illegally-parked vehicles. Someone's got to pay. Why not make it the trespasser? Then again, most places that enforce parking *are* pulling in quite a profit on parking permits...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14356.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6d514","c_root_id_B":"ci68f0m","created_at_utc_A":1402638515,"created_at_utc_B":1402625974,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The alternative would either be the police towing your car or a private property owner suing you in court for the tow fees. Both would cost more money than the current situation.","human_ref_B":"so it's cool if I park in your driveway, and let you pay to have it moved?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12541.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6d49m","c_root_id_B":"ci6d514","created_at_utc_A":1402638440,"created_at_utc_B":1402638515,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The towing company had to take the trouble to actually move your car. Why in the world would they just move it to the closest public road? Think about that for a second. How are they going to be paid and make their service profitable if they physically do not take and hold the car? Why even have the police involved? Does having police there make it somehow better when they stand around and do absolutely nothing? Either your car is on someone's property and it's getting towed or it isn't. I don't understand the gray room.","human_ref_B":"The alternative would either be the police towing your car or a private property owner suing you in court for the tow fees. Both would cost more money than the current situation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":75.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci68w34","c_root_id_B":"ci67m4a","created_at_utc_A":1402627071,"created_at_utc_B":1402624080,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It may vary by location, but I'm fairly certain that places with private security can remove trespassers, etc. without having to contact the police at all. Plus, what prevents this from becoming \"Pay us and we'll tell you where your car is\"? Especially somewhere with little free public parking like NYC?","human_ref_B":"How would the towing company get paid?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2991.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci68w34","c_root_id_B":"ci67nc9","created_at_utc_A":1402627071,"created_at_utc_B":1402624159,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It may vary by location, but I'm fairly certain that places with private security can remove trespassers, etc. without having to contact the police at all. Plus, what prevents this from becoming \"Pay us and we'll tell you where your car is\"? Especially somewhere with little free public parking like NYC?","human_ref_B":"The biggest problem with that argument is that you're now asking private property owners to foot the bill for removing illegally-parked vehicles. Someone's got to pay. Why not make it the trespasser? Then again, most places that enforce parking *are* pulling in quite a profit on parking permits...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2912.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci68w34","c_root_id_B":"ci68f0m","created_at_utc_A":1402627071,"created_at_utc_B":1402625974,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It may vary by location, but I'm fairly certain that places with private security can remove trespassers, etc. without having to contact the police at all. Plus, what prevents this from becoming \"Pay us and we'll tell you where your car is\"? Especially somewhere with little free public parking like NYC?","human_ref_B":"so it's cool if I park in your driveway, and let you pay to have it moved?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1097.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci67m4a","c_root_id_B":"ci6mhm5","created_at_utc_A":1402624080,"created_at_utc_B":1402674499,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"How would the towing company get paid?","human_ref_B":"You're not getting around the money problem.. somebody is paying for the tow truck, the truck driver and the space to hold your car. There are only three options and the one you don't like (private companies towing) actually gives you the most freedom in your payment situation. A. Police tow the car and write you a ticket for 500 dollars. (you MUST pay or face incarceration and added fines) B. Private property owner pays to tow your car to another location. Then they sue you for 500 dollars they spent moving your car. (you MUST pay or face incarceration and added fines) C. Private property owner contracts with tow company, they tow and store your car and don\u2019t release it until you pay 500 dollars. (you have the choice to pay or not at the risk of losing your car.. you face no jail time or criminal record for contempt)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":50419.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6mhm5","c_root_id_B":"ci67nc9","created_at_utc_A":1402674499,"created_at_utc_B":1402624159,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You're not getting around the money problem.. somebody is paying for the tow truck, the truck driver and the space to hold your car. There are only three options and the one you don't like (private companies towing) actually gives you the most freedom in your payment situation. A. Police tow the car and write you a ticket for 500 dollars. (you MUST pay or face incarceration and added fines) B. Private property owner pays to tow your car to another location. Then they sue you for 500 dollars they spent moving your car. (you MUST pay or face incarceration and added fines) C. Private property owner contracts with tow company, they tow and store your car and don\u2019t release it until you pay 500 dollars. (you have the choice to pay or not at the risk of losing your car.. you face no jail time or criminal record for contempt)","human_ref_B":"The biggest problem with that argument is that you're now asking private property owners to foot the bill for removing illegally-parked vehicles. Someone's got to pay. Why not make it the trespasser? Then again, most places that enforce parking *are* pulling in quite a profit on parking permits...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":50340.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6mhm5","c_root_id_B":"ci68f0m","created_at_utc_A":1402674499,"created_at_utc_B":1402625974,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You're not getting around the money problem.. somebody is paying for the tow truck, the truck driver and the space to hold your car. There are only three options and the one you don't like (private companies towing) actually gives you the most freedom in your payment situation. A. Police tow the car and write you a ticket for 500 dollars. (you MUST pay or face incarceration and added fines) B. Private property owner pays to tow your car to another location. Then they sue you for 500 dollars they spent moving your car. (you MUST pay or face incarceration and added fines) C. Private property owner contracts with tow company, they tow and store your car and don\u2019t release it until you pay 500 dollars. (you have the choice to pay or not at the risk of losing your car.. you face no jail time or criminal record for contempt)","human_ref_B":"so it's cool if I park in your driveway, and let you pay to have it moved?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":48525.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"280ljj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: I believe towing by private companies--and towing companies holding the vehicle for ransom--should be illegal Private property owners calling a towing company to impound the vehicle on thier behalf--and the towing company holding the vehicle for ~~payment~~ ransom--is tantamount to theft and should be illegal. I am okay with a private property owner calling a tow company to remove a vehicle from their grounds, but only if the police are involved just as they would be if they were having a trespasser removed. In that case the towing company should only be allowed to move the vehicle to the closest available public roadway or grounds. If at that point the police deem the vehicle should be impounded, then and only then should the vehicle be remanded to a *police* impound lot.","c_root_id_A":"ci6d49m","c_root_id_B":"ci6mhm5","created_at_utc_A":1402638440,"created_at_utc_B":1402674499,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The towing company had to take the trouble to actually move your car. Why in the world would they just move it to the closest public road? Think about that for a second. How are they going to be paid and make their service profitable if they physically do not take and hold the car? Why even have the police involved? Does having police there make it somehow better when they stand around and do absolutely nothing? Either your car is on someone's property and it's getting towed or it isn't. I don't understand the gray room.","human_ref_B":"You're not getting around the money problem.. somebody is paying for the tow truck, the truck driver and the space to hold your car. There are only three options and the one you don't like (private companies towing) actually gives you the most freedom in your payment situation. A. Police tow the car and write you a ticket for 500 dollars. (you MUST pay or face incarceration and added fines) B. Private property owner pays to tow your car to another location. Then they sue you for 500 dollars they spent moving your car. (you MUST pay or face incarceration and added fines) C. Private property owner contracts with tow company, they tow and store your car and don\u2019t release it until you pay 500 dollars. (you have the choice to pay or not at the risk of losing your car.. you face no jail time or criminal record for contempt)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":36059.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"iws6mr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If gender is defined by gender identity then gender has a circular definition and thus is meaningless. If gender is equivalent to gender identity, and gender identity is defined as what gender a person identifies as, then gender is equivalent to what gender a person identifies as. Because the definition of gender uses the word gender in it, it's a circular definition and has no meaning. In contrast, a word like sex has a non-circular definition. Sex is defined as the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females. Nowhere in that definition do you need to know what sex is to understand the concept of sex.","c_root_id_A":"g62a4nl","c_root_id_B":"g62973o","created_at_utc_A":1600658060,"created_at_utc_B":1600657478,"score_A":49,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Just because something is circularly defined doesn't mean it's meaningless. Instead, it is generally an indicator that something only still exists because people decided it existed in the past. Here are two more examples I thought of off the top of my head: * The U.S. Dollar - switched of the gold standard in 1971, now it just has value because everyone agrees it has value * Race - no real genetic or geographic component, and different cultures have different races","human_ref_B":"if you can find a definition of the word gender that includes the word gender, I'd love to hear it. I just googled the word gender, and this is what popped up. I think it's pretty good & reflects both the most bare bones common usage of the term as well as a reference to gender identity: >either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":582.0,"score_ratio":6.125} {"post_id":"iws6mr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If gender is defined by gender identity then gender has a circular definition and thus is meaningless. If gender is equivalent to gender identity, and gender identity is defined as what gender a person identifies as, then gender is equivalent to what gender a person identifies as. Because the definition of gender uses the word gender in it, it's a circular definition and has no meaning. In contrast, a word like sex has a non-circular definition. Sex is defined as the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females. Nowhere in that definition do you need to know what sex is to understand the concept of sex.","c_root_id_A":"g62a4nl","c_root_id_B":"g628tal","created_at_utc_A":1600658060,"created_at_utc_B":1600657233,"score_A":49,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Just because something is circularly defined doesn't mean it's meaningless. Instead, it is generally an indicator that something only still exists because people decided it existed in the past. Here are two more examples I thought of off the top of my head: * The U.S. Dollar - switched of the gold standard in 1971, now it just has value because everyone agrees it has value * Race - no real genetic or geographic component, and different cultures have different races","human_ref_B":"I have not seen many people claim that gender is equivalent to gender identity. What is this a response to?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":827.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"iws6mr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: If gender is defined by gender identity then gender has a circular definition and thus is meaningless. If gender is equivalent to gender identity, and gender identity is defined as what gender a person identifies as, then gender is equivalent to what gender a person identifies as. Because the definition of gender uses the word gender in it, it's a circular definition and has no meaning. In contrast, a word like sex has a non-circular definition. Sex is defined as the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females. Nowhere in that definition do you need to know what sex is to understand the concept of sex.","c_root_id_A":"g62973o","c_root_id_B":"g628tal","created_at_utc_A":1600657478,"created_at_utc_B":1600657233,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"if you can find a definition of the word gender that includes the word gender, I'd love to hear it. I just googled the word gender, and this is what popped up. I think it's pretty good & reflects both the most bare bones common usage of the term as well as a reference to gender identity: >either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.","human_ref_B":"I have not seen many people claim that gender is equivalent to gender identity. What is this a response to?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":245.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfx1q55","c_root_id_B":"hfwvk51","created_at_utc_A":1633736370,"created_at_utc_B":1633733472,"score_A":510,"score_B":289,"human_ref_A":"You don't necessarily have to look at it from a cost perspective. $5-10 is not much, and you get some ease of use out of it. In addition, if you really want to be cost-efficient, you don't need to use it for just toothpaste. For instance, plenty of medical ointments are expensive enough that even 5% of one tube covers the cost of such a squeezer.","human_ref_B":"my grandma uses something a like but bit bigger because of the arthritis, since she can\u2019t squeeze it unless the tube is almost full, but they are almost useless","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2898.0,"score_ratio":1.7647058824} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfww6a3","c_root_id_B":"hfx1q55","created_at_utc_A":1633733748,"created_at_utc_B":1633736370,"score_A":96,"score_B":510,"human_ref_A":"I 3D printed one a while ago. I would have to weigh it, but the cost (in filament and electricity) is well bellow 50 cents. More realistically, it's free. Filament doesn't store forever and the printer sits idle a lot of the time anyway. At that price, by your numbers, it pays for itself in a few months. So they can be worth it, as long as you aren't overpaying.","human_ref_B":"You don't necessarily have to look at it from a cost perspective. $5-10 is not much, and you get some ease of use out of it. In addition, if you really want to be cost-efficient, you don't need to use it for just toothpaste. For instance, plenty of medical ointments are expensive enough that even 5% of one tube covers the cost of such a squeezer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2622.0,"score_ratio":5.3125} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfx1q55","c_root_id_B":"hfwyf4d","created_at_utc_A":1633736370,"created_at_utc_B":1633734799,"score_A":510,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"You don't necessarily have to look at it from a cost perspective. $5-10 is not much, and you get some ease of use out of it. In addition, if you really want to be cost-efficient, you don't need to use it for just toothpaste. For instance, plenty of medical ointments are expensive enough that even 5% of one tube covers the cost of such a squeezer.","human_ref_B":"Focusing on the cost savings and dollar values is looking in the wrong direction. Your title suggests a premise where money spent is wasted unless it pays for itself. Money gets spent for a great many reasons, and is only truly wasted if the spending party is dissatisfied with the result. I could buy a fancy $500 holder to organize my two ink pens on my computer desk. If I felt satisfied with this decision, then I have wasted nothing. Of course it's easier, cheaper, and possibly even more practical to just lay my two ink pens side by side in the same spot on the desk every day. The holder could never ever pay for itself, even if I lost a pen a week for life without it. That's not the point. The point is that I wanted it, and I have chosen that for it's aesthetic value. A toothpaste squeezer could be just oddly satisfying enough to be worth the cost.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1571.0,"score_ratio":17.5862068966} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfwvicw","c_root_id_B":"hfx1q55","created_at_utc_A":1633733450,"created_at_utc_B":1633736370,"score_A":15,"score_B":510,"human_ref_A":"I enjoy your use of mathematical reasoning here, however, I\u2019d like to point to households with children that aren\u2019t quite to the point where they\u2019re able to effectively squeeze their toothpaste fully out. While it may not be a direct savings, it can easily be a QoL tool for kids, and quality of life is, in my opinion, worth $5 (especially if it makes it just a lil easier to help the rhythm of teaching to brush)","human_ref_B":"You don't necessarily have to look at it from a cost perspective. $5-10 is not much, and you get some ease of use out of it. In addition, if you really want to be cost-efficient, you don't need to use it for just toothpaste. For instance, plenty of medical ointments are expensive enough that even 5% of one tube covers the cost of such a squeezer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2920.0,"score_ratio":34.0} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfwzhjp","c_root_id_B":"hfx1q55","created_at_utc_A":1633735303,"created_at_utc_B":1633736370,"score_A":11,"score_B":510,"human_ref_A":"Its not just about the gains you get from the full tube. You are being less wasteful as you're throwing less toothpaste.","human_ref_B":"You don't necessarily have to look at it from a cost perspective. $5-10 is not much, and you get some ease of use out of it. In addition, if you really want to be cost-efficient, you don't need to use it for just toothpaste. For instance, plenty of medical ointments are expensive enough that even 5% of one tube covers the cost of such a squeezer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1067.0,"score_ratio":46.3636363636} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfwvicw","c_root_id_B":"hfwvk51","created_at_utc_A":1633733450,"created_at_utc_B":1633733472,"score_A":15,"score_B":289,"human_ref_A":"I enjoy your use of mathematical reasoning here, however, I\u2019d like to point to households with children that aren\u2019t quite to the point where they\u2019re able to effectively squeeze their toothpaste fully out. While it may not be a direct savings, it can easily be a QoL tool for kids, and quality of life is, in my opinion, worth $5 (especially if it makes it just a lil easier to help the rhythm of teaching to brush)","human_ref_B":"my grandma uses something a like but bit bigger because of the arthritis, since she can\u2019t squeeze it unless the tube is almost full, but they are almost useless","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22.0,"score_ratio":19.2666666667} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfx2nh1","c_root_id_B":"hfx2id8","created_at_utc_A":1633736811,"created_at_utc_B":1633736743,"score_A":215,"score_B":193,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t have a logical rebuttal other than I got one for a $1","human_ref_B":"I have a metal one that I use for a bunch of products, not only toothpaste. They're great for anything in a tube, including skincare products, lotion, and Neosporin. I rotate it between tubes as I need to. It might not save you a ton of money on toothpaste, but the hand lotion I use is $24.00 for 2.6 ounces so the tube squeezer is definitely worth it to me. In terms of longevity, I've had the same squeezer since 2010 and it still works great.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":68.0,"score_ratio":1.1139896373} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfww6a3","c_root_id_B":"hfx2nh1","created_at_utc_A":1633733748,"created_at_utc_B":1633736811,"score_A":96,"score_B":215,"human_ref_A":"I 3D printed one a while ago. I would have to weigh it, but the cost (in filament and electricity) is well bellow 50 cents. More realistically, it's free. Filament doesn't store forever and the printer sits idle a lot of the time anyway. At that price, by your numbers, it pays for itself in a few months. So they can be worth it, as long as you aren't overpaying.","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t have a logical rebuttal other than I got one for a $1","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3063.0,"score_ratio":2.2395833333} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfx2nh1","c_root_id_B":"hfwyf4d","created_at_utc_A":1633736811,"created_at_utc_B":1633734799,"score_A":215,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t have a logical rebuttal other than I got one for a $1","human_ref_B":"Focusing on the cost savings and dollar values is looking in the wrong direction. Your title suggests a premise where money spent is wasted unless it pays for itself. Money gets spent for a great many reasons, and is only truly wasted if the spending party is dissatisfied with the result. I could buy a fancy $500 holder to organize my two ink pens on my computer desk. If I felt satisfied with this decision, then I have wasted nothing. Of course it's easier, cheaper, and possibly even more practical to just lay my two ink pens side by side in the same spot on the desk every day. The holder could never ever pay for itself, even if I lost a pen a week for life without it. That's not the point. The point is that I wanted it, and I have chosen that for it's aesthetic value. A toothpaste squeezer could be just oddly satisfying enough to be worth the cost.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2012.0,"score_ratio":7.4137931034} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfwvicw","c_root_id_B":"hfx2nh1","created_at_utc_A":1633733450,"created_at_utc_B":1633736811,"score_A":15,"score_B":215,"human_ref_A":"I enjoy your use of mathematical reasoning here, however, I\u2019d like to point to households with children that aren\u2019t quite to the point where they\u2019re able to effectively squeeze their toothpaste fully out. While it may not be a direct savings, it can easily be a QoL tool for kids, and quality of life is, in my opinion, worth $5 (especially if it makes it just a lil easier to help the rhythm of teaching to brush)","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t have a logical rebuttal other than I got one for a $1","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3361.0,"score_ratio":14.3333333333} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfwzhjp","c_root_id_B":"hfx2nh1","created_at_utc_A":1633735303,"created_at_utc_B":1633736811,"score_A":11,"score_B":215,"human_ref_A":"Its not just about the gains you get from the full tube. You are being less wasteful as you're throwing less toothpaste.","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t have a logical rebuttal other than I got one for a $1","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1508.0,"score_ratio":19.5454545455} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfx2nh1","c_root_id_B":"hfx26ra","created_at_utc_A":1633736811,"created_at_utc_B":1633736589,"score_A":215,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t have a logical rebuttal other than I got one for a $1","human_ref_B":"I got a metal self standing one for my place (\u00a33.19) and one for my mum. I got it because I wanted to have a place for the toothpaste to always be - I find my girlfriend tends to place here there or everywhere when she brushes her teeth. I think actual toothbrush\/paste stands tend to be really ugly plastic and wouldn't match the bathrooms aesthetic. I also got one for my mum because my siblings are notorious for not using all the toothpaste and leaving a good amount still in the tube or squeezing the tube from the middle so you have to roll it up to get any out. I gave it to her as a small gift and she guessed what it was straight away (it didn't come in a box) and she was delighted to try it out as well. For the price I was happy with the product, it does the job it takes less time than manual rolling, it's always in the same spot so no missing toothpaste and my girlfriend (who has carpal tunnel syndrome) has easier use rolling the tube up.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":222.0,"score_ratio":30.7142857143} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfx2id8","c_root_id_B":"hfww6a3","created_at_utc_A":1633736743,"created_at_utc_B":1633733748,"score_A":193,"score_B":96,"human_ref_A":"I have a metal one that I use for a bunch of products, not only toothpaste. They're great for anything in a tube, including skincare products, lotion, and Neosporin. I rotate it between tubes as I need to. It might not save you a ton of money on toothpaste, but the hand lotion I use is $24.00 for 2.6 ounces so the tube squeezer is definitely worth it to me. In terms of longevity, I've had the same squeezer since 2010 and it still works great.","human_ref_B":"I 3D printed one a while ago. I would have to weigh it, but the cost (in filament and electricity) is well bellow 50 cents. More realistically, it's free. Filament doesn't store forever and the printer sits idle a lot of the time anyway. At that price, by your numbers, it pays for itself in a few months. So they can be worth it, as long as you aren't overpaying.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2995.0,"score_ratio":2.0104166667} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfwyf4d","c_root_id_B":"hfx2id8","created_at_utc_A":1633734799,"created_at_utc_B":1633736743,"score_A":29,"score_B":193,"human_ref_A":"Focusing on the cost savings and dollar values is looking in the wrong direction. Your title suggests a premise where money spent is wasted unless it pays for itself. Money gets spent for a great many reasons, and is only truly wasted if the spending party is dissatisfied with the result. I could buy a fancy $500 holder to organize my two ink pens on my computer desk. If I felt satisfied with this decision, then I have wasted nothing. Of course it's easier, cheaper, and possibly even more practical to just lay my two ink pens side by side in the same spot on the desk every day. The holder could never ever pay for itself, even if I lost a pen a week for life without it. That's not the point. The point is that I wanted it, and I have chosen that for it's aesthetic value. A toothpaste squeezer could be just oddly satisfying enough to be worth the cost.","human_ref_B":"I have a metal one that I use for a bunch of products, not only toothpaste. They're great for anything in a tube, including skincare products, lotion, and Neosporin. I rotate it between tubes as I need to. It might not save you a ton of money on toothpaste, but the hand lotion I use is $24.00 for 2.6 ounces so the tube squeezer is definitely worth it to me. In terms of longevity, I've had the same squeezer since 2010 and it still works great.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1944.0,"score_ratio":6.6551724138} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfx2id8","c_root_id_B":"hfwvicw","created_at_utc_A":1633736743,"created_at_utc_B":1633733450,"score_A":193,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I have a metal one that I use for a bunch of products, not only toothpaste. They're great for anything in a tube, including skincare products, lotion, and Neosporin. I rotate it between tubes as I need to. It might not save you a ton of money on toothpaste, but the hand lotion I use is $24.00 for 2.6 ounces so the tube squeezer is definitely worth it to me. In terms of longevity, I've had the same squeezer since 2010 and it still works great.","human_ref_B":"I enjoy your use of mathematical reasoning here, however, I\u2019d like to point to households with children that aren\u2019t quite to the point where they\u2019re able to effectively squeeze their toothpaste fully out. While it may not be a direct savings, it can easily be a QoL tool for kids, and quality of life is, in my opinion, worth $5 (especially if it makes it just a lil easier to help the rhythm of teaching to brush)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3293.0,"score_ratio":12.8666666667} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfx2id8","c_root_id_B":"hfwzhjp","created_at_utc_A":1633736743,"created_at_utc_B":1633735303,"score_A":193,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I have a metal one that I use for a bunch of products, not only toothpaste. They're great for anything in a tube, including skincare products, lotion, and Neosporin. I rotate it between tubes as I need to. It might not save you a ton of money on toothpaste, but the hand lotion I use is $24.00 for 2.6 ounces so the tube squeezer is definitely worth it to me. In terms of longevity, I've had the same squeezer since 2010 and it still works great.","human_ref_B":"Its not just about the gains you get from the full tube. You are being less wasteful as you're throwing less toothpaste.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1440.0,"score_ratio":17.5454545455} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfx2id8","c_root_id_B":"hfx26ra","created_at_utc_A":1633736743,"created_at_utc_B":1633736589,"score_A":193,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I have a metal one that I use for a bunch of products, not only toothpaste. They're great for anything in a tube, including skincare products, lotion, and Neosporin. I rotate it between tubes as I need to. It might not save you a ton of money on toothpaste, but the hand lotion I use is $24.00 for 2.6 ounces so the tube squeezer is definitely worth it to me. In terms of longevity, I've had the same squeezer since 2010 and it still works great.","human_ref_B":"I got a metal self standing one for my place (\u00a33.19) and one for my mum. I got it because I wanted to have a place for the toothpaste to always be - I find my girlfriend tends to place here there or everywhere when she brushes her teeth. I think actual toothbrush\/paste stands tend to be really ugly plastic and wouldn't match the bathrooms aesthetic. I also got one for my mum because my siblings are notorious for not using all the toothpaste and leaving a good amount still in the tube or squeezing the tube from the middle so you have to roll it up to get any out. I gave it to her as a small gift and she guessed what it was straight away (it didn't come in a box) and she was delighted to try it out as well. For the price I was happy with the product, it does the job it takes less time than manual rolling, it's always in the same spot so no missing toothpaste and my girlfriend (who has carpal tunnel syndrome) has easier use rolling the tube up.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":154.0,"score_ratio":27.5714285714} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfww6a3","c_root_id_B":"hfwvicw","created_at_utc_A":1633733748,"created_at_utc_B":1633733450,"score_A":96,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I 3D printed one a while ago. I would have to weigh it, but the cost (in filament and electricity) is well bellow 50 cents. More realistically, it's free. Filament doesn't store forever and the printer sits idle a lot of the time anyway. At that price, by your numbers, it pays for itself in a few months. So they can be worth it, as long as you aren't overpaying.","human_ref_B":"I enjoy your use of mathematical reasoning here, however, I\u2019d like to point to households with children that aren\u2019t quite to the point where they\u2019re able to effectively squeeze their toothpaste fully out. While it may not be a direct savings, it can easily be a QoL tool for kids, and quality of life is, in my opinion, worth $5 (especially if it makes it just a lil easier to help the rhythm of teaching to brush)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":298.0,"score_ratio":6.4} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfwyf4d","c_root_id_B":"hfwvicw","created_at_utc_A":1633734799,"created_at_utc_B":1633733450,"score_A":29,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Focusing on the cost savings and dollar values is looking in the wrong direction. Your title suggests a premise where money spent is wasted unless it pays for itself. Money gets spent for a great many reasons, and is only truly wasted if the spending party is dissatisfied with the result. I could buy a fancy $500 holder to organize my two ink pens on my computer desk. If I felt satisfied with this decision, then I have wasted nothing. Of course it's easier, cheaper, and possibly even more practical to just lay my two ink pens side by side in the same spot on the desk every day. The holder could never ever pay for itself, even if I lost a pen a week for life without it. That's not the point. The point is that I wanted it, and I have chosen that for it's aesthetic value. A toothpaste squeezer could be just oddly satisfying enough to be worth the cost.","human_ref_B":"I enjoy your use of mathematical reasoning here, however, I\u2019d like to point to households with children that aren\u2019t quite to the point where they\u2019re able to effectively squeeze their toothpaste fully out. While it may not be a direct savings, it can easily be a QoL tool for kids, and quality of life is, in my opinion, worth $5 (especially if it makes it just a lil easier to help the rhythm of teaching to brush)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1349.0,"score_ratio":1.9333333333} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfxfb6d","c_root_id_B":"hfx26ra","created_at_utc_A":1633743024,"created_at_utc_B":1633736589,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It's not to save money, it's to stop that scratch at the back of the head for wastage. People that buy it tend to be more economically focused including the environment and we're raised in a way that binning waste is a bad thing. Having this helps feel better, it's not about money exactly but just satisfying a human desire to not waste. If you don't have that desire and weren't raised that way, then it's not going to do anything for you. It's like people that will only buy items on sale for 2$ off then will spend an extra grand on a new car because it's a better colour or they didn't want to haggle. It's not actually about saving the money, just the concept of wasting in general. Also it keeps it neat and tidy at low amounts which is nice.","human_ref_B":"I got a metal self standing one for my place (\u00a33.19) and one for my mum. I got it because I wanted to have a place for the toothpaste to always be - I find my girlfriend tends to place here there or everywhere when she brushes her teeth. I think actual toothbrush\/paste stands tend to be really ugly plastic and wouldn't match the bathrooms aesthetic. I also got one for my mum because my siblings are notorious for not using all the toothpaste and leaving a good amount still in the tube or squeezing the tube from the middle so you have to roll it up to get any out. I gave it to her as a small gift and she guessed what it was straight away (it didn't come in a box) and she was delighted to try it out as well. For the price I was happy with the product, it does the job it takes less time than manual rolling, it's always in the same spot so no missing toothpaste and my girlfriend (who has carpal tunnel syndrome) has easier use rolling the tube up.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6435.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfxgpwj","c_root_id_B":"hfxirfz","created_at_utc_A":1633743733,"created_at_utc_B":1633744746,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I love stuff like this. Your numbers are good and generous for your situation and with cheap toothpaste its not worth it. but what about this example. 2 people 1 bath, they buy the product you linked (which is a 2 pack) they both use different types of toothpaste. 1 uses sensodyne 5.99$ per tube (3.4 oz) 1 uses colgate optic white renewal 8.85$ (3 oz) They are using 1 tube a month each (that's the recommended usage) If you pop those prices into your formula those tools pay off almost immediately. If one of them uses any other kind of tube product that can work with the tube squeezer , lotion, beard cream, face cleaner... the tools seem like a huge savings so much so that if you cut the 5% down to 2% they are still worth it over the year. TLDR: Cheap toothpaste not worth it. Expensive products 100% worth it.","human_ref_B":"If you're thinking purely in terms of toothpaste savings then yes. But the one we have has other benefits, it also acts like a stand, it is taut and a slight turn tightens it up quickly, it looks nice","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1013.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"q48hb1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Toothpaste squeezers are a waste of money I am referring to this type of product. I believe these are a waste of money. My wife go through a tube of toothpaste every 2 or 3 months, but I\u2019ll be generous for this example and estimate the average household goes through a tube every month and each tube is $3. Now, realistically, you\u2019re not going to really get much more out from using one of these gadgets. I\u2019ll be generous again and say it saves you 5% of each tube. 12 tubes * $3 * 5% = $1.80 in savings per year. These products are mostly in the $5-10 range. If you purchase one of these for $5, it would take you almost 3 years for the amount you save to equal the price you paid. If you spent $10 on one, it would take 5 and a half years. If you manage to keep this cheap piece of plastic for 25 years without it breaking, you will save a whopping $40. However, I highly doubt it would it would last more than a couple of years at most.","c_root_id_A":"hfxgpwj","c_root_id_B":"hfxur37","created_at_utc_A":1633743733,"created_at_utc_B":1633750821,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I love stuff like this. Your numbers are good and generous for your situation and with cheap toothpaste its not worth it. but what about this example. 2 people 1 bath, they buy the product you linked (which is a 2 pack) they both use different types of toothpaste. 1 uses sensodyne 5.99$ per tube (3.4 oz) 1 uses colgate optic white renewal 8.85$ (3 oz) They are using 1 tube a month each (that's the recommended usage) If you pop those prices into your formula those tools pay off almost immediately. If one of them uses any other kind of tube product that can work with the tube squeezer , lotion, beard cream, face cleaner... the tools seem like a huge savings so much so that if you cut the 5% down to 2% they are still worth it over the year. TLDR: Cheap toothpaste not worth it. Expensive products 100% worth it.","human_ref_B":"If you are me, you will cut the tube open when its empty and scratch the toothbrush around in there until every last bit of tooth paste has been used. A squeezer is way more dignified and you cant put a price on dignity.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7088.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"qkd68d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: The Atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a disproportionate and unjustifiable means of ending the war in the Pacific On the 6th August, 1945, the first of the only two nuclear weapons ever used in an act of aggression was deployed by the United States against the Japanese city of Hiroshima, with casualties ranging from 90,000 people to well over 140,000. Many of those killed or injured by the bomb were noncombatants- woman, children, etc. Three days later on the 9th August, due to the lack of an immediate surrender by the Japanese Government, the US dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing a minimum of 39,000 civilians. Again, these were innocent people who had no real say in the top-level decisions of their government, but who payed the price regardless. In total, a minimum of 129,000 people died in the pursuit of a Japanese surrender. While Japan had committed many atrocities during the war in the Asia-Pacific theatre of WWII, and while their desire was to fight to the very end, none of this justifies the mass murder of two cities of innocent noncombatants. None of the thousands of civilians who died in a split second were guilty of any crime bar being a citizen of an enemy nation, which isn\u2019t even a offence in and of itself. None of them should have borne any responsibility for the crimes inflicted by their leaders. What\u2019s more is that many of the leaders and US Military personnel responsible for the act never had any retribution levied against them, despite having been responsible for what is objectively an act of mass murder. The pilot of Enola Gay was even lauded as a hero. I cannot possibly think of any justification for such a disproportionate act of aggression against innocent people; an act that was never punished during the lives of its perpetrators. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"hivn1yb","c_root_id_B":"hivmkty","created_at_utc_A":1635771244,"created_at_utc_B":1635770970,"score_A":39,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Desert Storm made people stupid. Modern people think that smart bombs and special forces make every civilian casualty an avoidable tragedy, and they imagine that war has essentially always been this way when it almost never has. Most of us can no longer conceive of a world where killing the civilians the enemy state is charged with protecting is a legitimate tactic in war. When strategic bombing was first theorized in between the world wars, it went something like this: you send bombers in three waves. The first drops high explosives to cause damage, knock over buildings and impede travel. The second drops incendiaries to start fires. Then, when everyone is outside trying to put out fires and help the wounded, you drop the chemical weapons and kill them all. Surprisingly enough, World War 2 didn't get quite that horrible - but there were bombings and firebombings of cities that killed thousands of enemy civilians. The preciousness over the atomic bombings is asinine unless you also take umbrage with every bomb dropped on every Axis city in order to coerce them into surrender. A person killed by a 50 lb HE bomb is no less dead than someone vaporized by an atomic bomb. You don't just get to call that out, you have to call out all the rest equally. And when you take that moral umbrage, consider the alternative. If it meant the Third Reich or the Japanese Empire survived to fight another day, would it have been worth it? EDIT - Put another way, if bombing civilians made the difference between beating the Axis and losing to them (whatever that would entail), would you do it?","human_ref_B":"They were already firebombing Japanese cities that were made of wood and burned very easily. The body count continuing in this way would have exceeded those from nuclear. McArthur stated that to invade Japan and remove the emperor it would require 800,000 more troops. The death toll of continuing the war in a conventional manner would almost certainly have exceeded that of the nuclear bombings. Not doing anything wasn't an option. All options were terrible. This was just one of them that possibly saved a lot of lives, specifically those of invading American troops.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":274.0,"score_ratio":19.5} {"post_id":"qkd68d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: The Atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a disproportionate and unjustifiable means of ending the war in the Pacific On the 6th August, 1945, the first of the only two nuclear weapons ever used in an act of aggression was deployed by the United States against the Japanese city of Hiroshima, with casualties ranging from 90,000 people to well over 140,000. Many of those killed or injured by the bomb were noncombatants- woman, children, etc. Three days later on the 9th August, due to the lack of an immediate surrender by the Japanese Government, the US dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing a minimum of 39,000 civilians. Again, these were innocent people who had no real say in the top-level decisions of their government, but who payed the price regardless. In total, a minimum of 129,000 people died in the pursuit of a Japanese surrender. While Japan had committed many atrocities during the war in the Asia-Pacific theatre of WWII, and while their desire was to fight to the very end, none of this justifies the mass murder of two cities of innocent noncombatants. None of the thousands of civilians who died in a split second were guilty of any crime bar being a citizen of an enemy nation, which isn\u2019t even a offence in and of itself. None of them should have borne any responsibility for the crimes inflicted by their leaders. What\u2019s more is that many of the leaders and US Military personnel responsible for the act never had any retribution levied against them, despite having been responsible for what is objectively an act of mass murder. The pilot of Enola Gay was even lauded as a hero. I cannot possibly think of any justification for such a disproportionate act of aggression against innocent people; an act that was never punished during the lives of its perpetrators. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"hivndev","c_root_id_B":"hivmkty","created_at_utc_A":1635771426,"created_at_utc_B":1635770970,"score_A":24,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The Japanese would have fought to the last women and child, meaning millions of more would have died. They were fanatical and teaching children in schools how to kill Americans with spears while also telling them if you surrender the Americans will rape and torture you hence the mass suicide that took place on islands like Saipan. It was an atrocious act of war but what was occurring in the pacific horrified officials back in the states and they new if they didn\u2019t create and demonstrate nuclear force some country would.","human_ref_B":"They were already firebombing Japanese cities that were made of wood and burned very easily. The body count continuing in this way would have exceeded those from nuclear. McArthur stated that to invade Japan and remove the emperor it would require 800,000 more troops. The death toll of continuing the war in a conventional manner would almost certainly have exceeded that of the nuclear bombings. Not doing anything wasn't an option. All options were terrible. This was just one of them that possibly saved a lot of lives, specifically those of invading American troops.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":456.0,"score_ratio":12.0} {"post_id":"qkd68d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: The Atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a disproportionate and unjustifiable means of ending the war in the Pacific On the 6th August, 1945, the first of the only two nuclear weapons ever used in an act of aggression was deployed by the United States against the Japanese city of Hiroshima, with casualties ranging from 90,000 people to well over 140,000. Many of those killed or injured by the bomb were noncombatants- woman, children, etc. Three days later on the 9th August, due to the lack of an immediate surrender by the Japanese Government, the US dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing a minimum of 39,000 civilians. Again, these were innocent people who had no real say in the top-level decisions of their government, but who payed the price regardless. In total, a minimum of 129,000 people died in the pursuit of a Japanese surrender. While Japan had committed many atrocities during the war in the Asia-Pacific theatre of WWII, and while their desire was to fight to the very end, none of this justifies the mass murder of two cities of innocent noncombatants. None of the thousands of civilians who died in a split second were guilty of any crime bar being a citizen of an enemy nation, which isn\u2019t even a offence in and of itself. None of them should have borne any responsibility for the crimes inflicted by their leaders. What\u2019s more is that many of the leaders and US Military personnel responsible for the act never had any retribution levied against them, despite having been responsible for what is objectively an act of mass murder. The pilot of Enola Gay was even lauded as a hero. I cannot possibly think of any justification for such a disproportionate act of aggression against innocent people; an act that was never punished during the lives of its perpetrators. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"hivptrv","c_root_id_B":"hivu6be","created_at_utc_A":1635772779,"created_at_utc_B":1635774994,"score_A":4,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"In the eyes of many of the military planners, the nuclear bombs were just another weapon. All the major parties involved in WW2 had been slaughtering civilians for more or less abstract and often all together imaginary military advantages. So insofar as you're implying that the use of a nuclear bomb was a singularly terrible atrocity, I don't think that holds. As to whether the bombs would have been justified as a means to get Japan to surrender? If they had been considered strictly necessary to do that, they may have been. Again while the bombs had awesome might, it seems unlikely that any other course of action would have seen significantly less civilian casualties. At least not with the tools and mindset prevailing at the time. Does the act hold up to moral scrutiny with hindsight, given what we know about how close a Japanese surrender was and how little the actual people in charge cared about minizing casualties? I don't think so. But that's a very different kind of question to ask.","human_ref_B":"I've written a detailed paper on the topic. My key points are as follows: 1. Many more people died from the conventional bombing campaign and I don't see a way to condemn the atomic bombs without condemning the conventional bombing. 2. It would have been impossible to defeat Japan without a bombing campaign. 3. It is very likely the many more civilians would have died from an amphibious invasion. 4. The placement of the bombs was chosen to make a naval invasion easier if it was still necessary. 5. The US had just fought multiple campaigns where the Japanese citizens were either mobilized against the US forces or committed mass suicide resulting in near 100% casualties among the Japanese presence (both military and civilian) and it was seen as a real possibility that fighting through the main archipelago would have the same result. The conclusion that I've reached after analyzing the data is that it is very likely that far more people would have died if not for the use of the atomic bombs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2215.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"qkd68d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: The Atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a disproportionate and unjustifiable means of ending the war in the Pacific On the 6th August, 1945, the first of the only two nuclear weapons ever used in an act of aggression was deployed by the United States against the Japanese city of Hiroshima, with casualties ranging from 90,000 people to well over 140,000. Many of those killed or injured by the bomb were noncombatants- woman, children, etc. Three days later on the 9th August, due to the lack of an immediate surrender by the Japanese Government, the US dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing a minimum of 39,000 civilians. Again, these were innocent people who had no real say in the top-level decisions of their government, but who payed the price regardless. In total, a minimum of 129,000 people died in the pursuit of a Japanese surrender. While Japan had committed many atrocities during the war in the Asia-Pacific theatre of WWII, and while their desire was to fight to the very end, none of this justifies the mass murder of two cities of innocent noncombatants. None of the thousands of civilians who died in a split second were guilty of any crime bar being a citizen of an enemy nation, which isn\u2019t even a offence in and of itself. None of them should have borne any responsibility for the crimes inflicted by their leaders. What\u2019s more is that many of the leaders and US Military personnel responsible for the act never had any retribution levied against them, despite having been responsible for what is objectively an act of mass murder. The pilot of Enola Gay was even lauded as a hero. I cannot possibly think of any justification for such a disproportionate act of aggression against innocent people; an act that was never punished during the lives of its perpetrators. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"hivqu8s","c_root_id_B":"hivu6be","created_at_utc_A":1635773313,"created_at_utc_B":1635774994,"score_A":3,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"War in itself is a disproportionate and unjustifiable means of expanding a country's territory and power. Ww2 wasn't a friendly game of chess. You do what you need to in order to keep your own people alive, and the japanese were a stubborn bunch of pricks. Nuking a large civilian population may not have been the best choice, but it worked, and it minimised casualties on allies' side. Not to mention that asia wasn't the only front in ww2. They needed personnel and equipment to fight in Europe as well. The nukes were most likely the only solution that would end the war without sending millions more to their deaths. And even if it wasn't the best solution, nobody could think of a better one either way. You could also look at it this way: if the japanese government didn't want their country to be nuked, or hundreds of thousands to die, they shouldn't have started a fucking war.","human_ref_B":"I've written a detailed paper on the topic. My key points are as follows: 1. Many more people died from the conventional bombing campaign and I don't see a way to condemn the atomic bombs without condemning the conventional bombing. 2. It would have been impossible to defeat Japan without a bombing campaign. 3. It is very likely the many more civilians would have died from an amphibious invasion. 4. The placement of the bombs was chosen to make a naval invasion easier if it was still necessary. 5. The US had just fought multiple campaigns where the Japanese citizens were either mobilized against the US forces or committed mass suicide resulting in near 100% casualties among the Japanese presence (both military and civilian) and it was seen as a real possibility that fighting through the main archipelago would have the same result. The conclusion that I've reached after analyzing the data is that it is very likely that far more people would have died if not for the use of the atomic bombs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1681.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"qkd68d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: The Atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a disproportionate and unjustifiable means of ending the war in the Pacific On the 6th August, 1945, the first of the only two nuclear weapons ever used in an act of aggression was deployed by the United States against the Japanese city of Hiroshima, with casualties ranging from 90,000 people to well over 140,000. Many of those killed or injured by the bomb were noncombatants- woman, children, etc. Three days later on the 9th August, due to the lack of an immediate surrender by the Japanese Government, the US dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing a minimum of 39,000 civilians. Again, these were innocent people who had no real say in the top-level decisions of their government, but who payed the price regardless. In total, a minimum of 129,000 people died in the pursuit of a Japanese surrender. While Japan had committed many atrocities during the war in the Asia-Pacific theatre of WWII, and while their desire was to fight to the very end, none of this justifies the mass murder of two cities of innocent noncombatants. None of the thousands of civilians who died in a split second were guilty of any crime bar being a citizen of an enemy nation, which isn\u2019t even a offence in and of itself. None of them should have borne any responsibility for the crimes inflicted by their leaders. What\u2019s more is that many of the leaders and US Military personnel responsible for the act never had any retribution levied against them, despite having been responsible for what is objectively an act of mass murder. The pilot of Enola Gay was even lauded as a hero. I cannot possibly think of any justification for such a disproportionate act of aggression against innocent people; an act that was never punished during the lives of its perpetrators. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"hivmkty","c_root_id_B":"hivu6be","created_at_utc_A":1635770970,"created_at_utc_B":1635774994,"score_A":2,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"They were already firebombing Japanese cities that were made of wood and burned very easily. The body count continuing in this way would have exceeded those from nuclear. McArthur stated that to invade Japan and remove the emperor it would require 800,000 more troops. The death toll of continuing the war in a conventional manner would almost certainly have exceeded that of the nuclear bombings. Not doing anything wasn't an option. All options were terrible. This was just one of them that possibly saved a lot of lives, specifically those of invading American troops.","human_ref_B":"I've written a detailed paper on the topic. My key points are as follows: 1. Many more people died from the conventional bombing campaign and I don't see a way to condemn the atomic bombs without condemning the conventional bombing. 2. It would have been impossible to defeat Japan without a bombing campaign. 3. It is very likely the many more civilians would have died from an amphibious invasion. 4. The placement of the bombs was chosen to make a naval invasion easier if it was still necessary. 5. The US had just fought multiple campaigns where the Japanese citizens were either mobilized against the US forces or committed mass suicide resulting in near 100% casualties among the Japanese presence (both military and civilian) and it was seen as a real possibility that fighting through the main archipelago would have the same result. The conclusion that I've reached after analyzing the data is that it is very likely that far more people would have died if not for the use of the atomic bombs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4024.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"qkd68d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: The Atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a disproportionate and unjustifiable means of ending the war in the Pacific On the 6th August, 1945, the first of the only two nuclear weapons ever used in an act of aggression was deployed by the United States against the Japanese city of Hiroshima, with casualties ranging from 90,000 people to well over 140,000. Many of those killed or injured by the bomb were noncombatants- woman, children, etc. Three days later on the 9th August, due to the lack of an immediate surrender by the Japanese Government, the US dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing a minimum of 39,000 civilians. Again, these were innocent people who had no real say in the top-level decisions of their government, but who payed the price regardless. In total, a minimum of 129,000 people died in the pursuit of a Japanese surrender. While Japan had committed many atrocities during the war in the Asia-Pacific theatre of WWII, and while their desire was to fight to the very end, none of this justifies the mass murder of two cities of innocent noncombatants. None of the thousands of civilians who died in a split second were guilty of any crime bar being a citizen of an enemy nation, which isn\u2019t even a offence in and of itself. None of them should have borne any responsibility for the crimes inflicted by their leaders. What\u2019s more is that many of the leaders and US Military personnel responsible for the act never had any retribution levied against them, despite having been responsible for what is objectively an act of mass murder. The pilot of Enola Gay was even lauded as a hero. I cannot possibly think of any justification for such a disproportionate act of aggression against innocent people; an act that was never punished during the lives of its perpetrators. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"hivmkty","c_root_id_B":"hivptrv","created_at_utc_A":1635770970,"created_at_utc_B":1635772779,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"They were already firebombing Japanese cities that were made of wood and burned very easily. The body count continuing in this way would have exceeded those from nuclear. McArthur stated that to invade Japan and remove the emperor it would require 800,000 more troops. The death toll of continuing the war in a conventional manner would almost certainly have exceeded that of the nuclear bombings. Not doing anything wasn't an option. All options were terrible. This was just one of them that possibly saved a lot of lives, specifically those of invading American troops.","human_ref_B":"In the eyes of many of the military planners, the nuclear bombs were just another weapon. All the major parties involved in WW2 had been slaughtering civilians for more or less abstract and often all together imaginary military advantages. So insofar as you're implying that the use of a nuclear bomb was a singularly terrible atrocity, I don't think that holds. As to whether the bombs would have been justified as a means to get Japan to surrender? If they had been considered strictly necessary to do that, they may have been. Again while the bombs had awesome might, it seems unlikely that any other course of action would have seen significantly less civilian casualties. At least not with the tools and mindset prevailing at the time. Does the act hold up to moral scrutiny with hindsight, given what we know about how close a Japanese surrender was and how little the actual people in charge cared about minizing casualties? I don't think so. But that's a very different kind of question to ask.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1809.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"qkd68d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: The Atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a disproportionate and unjustifiable means of ending the war in the Pacific On the 6th August, 1945, the first of the only two nuclear weapons ever used in an act of aggression was deployed by the United States against the Japanese city of Hiroshima, with casualties ranging from 90,000 people to well over 140,000. Many of those killed or injured by the bomb were noncombatants- woman, children, etc. Three days later on the 9th August, due to the lack of an immediate surrender by the Japanese Government, the US dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing a minimum of 39,000 civilians. Again, these were innocent people who had no real say in the top-level decisions of their government, but who payed the price regardless. In total, a minimum of 129,000 people died in the pursuit of a Japanese surrender. While Japan had committed many atrocities during the war in the Asia-Pacific theatre of WWII, and while their desire was to fight to the very end, none of this justifies the mass murder of two cities of innocent noncombatants. None of the thousands of civilians who died in a split second were guilty of any crime bar being a citizen of an enemy nation, which isn\u2019t even a offence in and of itself. None of them should have borne any responsibility for the crimes inflicted by their leaders. What\u2019s more is that many of the leaders and US Military personnel responsible for the act never had any retribution levied against them, despite having been responsible for what is objectively an act of mass murder. The pilot of Enola Gay was even lauded as a hero. I cannot possibly think of any justification for such a disproportionate act of aggression against innocent people; an act that was never punished during the lives of its perpetrators. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"hivmkty","c_root_id_B":"hivqu8s","created_at_utc_A":1635770970,"created_at_utc_B":1635773313,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"They were already firebombing Japanese cities that were made of wood and burned very easily. The body count continuing in this way would have exceeded those from nuclear. McArthur stated that to invade Japan and remove the emperor it would require 800,000 more troops. The death toll of continuing the war in a conventional manner would almost certainly have exceeded that of the nuclear bombings. Not doing anything wasn't an option. All options were terrible. This was just one of them that possibly saved a lot of lives, specifically those of invading American troops.","human_ref_B":"War in itself is a disproportionate and unjustifiable means of expanding a country's territory and power. Ww2 wasn't a friendly game of chess. You do what you need to in order to keep your own people alive, and the japanese were a stubborn bunch of pricks. Nuking a large civilian population may not have been the best choice, but it worked, and it minimised casualties on allies' side. Not to mention that asia wasn't the only front in ww2. They needed personnel and equipment to fight in Europe as well. The nukes were most likely the only solution that would end the war without sending millions more to their deaths. And even if it wasn't the best solution, nobody could think of a better one either way. You could also look at it this way: if the japanese government didn't want their country to be nuked, or hundreds of thousands to die, they shouldn't have started a fucking war.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2343.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"qkd68d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.55,"history":"CMV: The Atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a disproportionate and unjustifiable means of ending the war in the Pacific On the 6th August, 1945, the first of the only two nuclear weapons ever used in an act of aggression was deployed by the United States against the Japanese city of Hiroshima, with casualties ranging from 90,000 people to well over 140,000. Many of those killed or injured by the bomb were noncombatants- woman, children, etc. Three days later on the 9th August, due to the lack of an immediate surrender by the Japanese Government, the US dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing a minimum of 39,000 civilians. Again, these were innocent people who had no real say in the top-level decisions of their government, but who payed the price regardless. In total, a minimum of 129,000 people died in the pursuit of a Japanese surrender. While Japan had committed many atrocities during the war in the Asia-Pacific theatre of WWII, and while their desire was to fight to the very end, none of this justifies the mass murder of two cities of innocent noncombatants. None of the thousands of civilians who died in a split second were guilty of any crime bar being a citizen of an enemy nation, which isn\u2019t even a offence in and of itself. None of them should have borne any responsibility for the crimes inflicted by their leaders. What\u2019s more is that many of the leaders and US Military personnel responsible for the act never had any retribution levied against them, despite having been responsible for what is objectively an act of mass murder. The pilot of Enola Gay was even lauded as a hero. I cannot possibly think of any justification for such a disproportionate act of aggression against innocent people; an act that was never punished during the lives of its perpetrators. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"hivy5ya","c_root_id_B":"hivmkty","created_at_utc_A":1635776878,"created_at_utc_B":1635770970,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In several posts, you propose an alternative of blockading Japan and fire bombing them into submission, but I don't think you have considered the massive loss of life that would spring from that. The Battle of Britain led to over 50,000 civilian causalities, and Britain was successful in defending themselves. The Bombing of Tokyo led to the death of 80,000 to 130,000 civilians. Different war but Operation Rolling Thunder led to some 182,000 civilian casualties in Vietnam. That's estimated from the bombings alone. How about the effects of a continued siege and the famine that follows? The siege of Leningrad led to possibly over a million civilian and 4 million military casualties. The death toll across Asia due to famine would have also continued with current estimates in the 10s of millions, nevermind continued deaths due to the continued brutal Japanese occupation. Prolonged sieges, especially against a highly determined populace means casualties skyrocket. We cant know how the war would have been different, but the potential for more casualties as a result of continuing WW2 for possibly years longer is likely in the millions. There is a lesser evil here.","human_ref_B":"They were already firebombing Japanese cities that were made of wood and burned very easily. The body count continuing in this way would have exceeded those from nuclear. McArthur stated that to invade Japan and remove the emperor it would require 800,000 more troops. The death toll of continuing the war in a conventional manner would almost certainly have exceeded that of the nuclear bombings. Not doing anything wasn't an option. All options were terrible. This was just one of them that possibly saved a lot of lives, specifically those of invading American troops.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5908.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djvzmfq","c_root_id_B":"djw1a3m","created_at_utc_A":1499400685,"created_at_utc_B":1499403307,"score_A":4,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"Why should this argument be about statistics when it is one of the constitutional amendments that allows all citizens to bear arms? Should these rights be chopped and changed because of different interpretations of statistics?","human_ref_B":"So to preface, I'm a gun owner and do not support the NRA's method of business. I feel like they rely fat too much on fearmongering and propaganda. However, when you look at gun control methods in the US, politicians tend to attack low hanging fruit. Right now Republicans are making a push to remove suppressors from NFA regulation. The basis is simple-the amount of suppressors involved in gun violence is such a statistical minority that they're irrelevent to the gun control conversation. Their effectiveness is exaggerated in media, there hasn't been an instance where they've been proven to be a danger to the public and there's a massive hobbyist and hunting demand for them over the last few years. Yet, gun control advocates fight this tooth and nail on the basis of public safety. We see the same kind of push for assault weapon legislation despite the fact that the guns involved are used in a tiny percentage of crime in the US. So on one hand the NRA's methods are exaggerated. On the other hand, they're being funded by people who want protect ownership of weapons that are under constant scrutiny. My best rebuttle would be that gun control advocates should focus on areas of society most impacted by gun violence-primarily low income areas and involving handguns-rather than chasing boogeyman figures in gun culture.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2622.0,"score_ratio":15.0} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djw1zwc","c_root_id_B":"djvzmfq","created_at_utc_A":1499404506,"created_at_utc_B":1499400685,"score_A":28,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The CDC had done a study on gun violence, you can read it here and furthermore you can read more about this in this informative post by u\/vegetarianrobots https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Firearms\/comments\/6421hq\/dispelling_the_myth_that_the_us_government_is\/ We have plenty of statistics from the FBI, CDC, NCVS, NSSF, ATF, and others but they are often twisted or misrepresented. The Violence Policy center released their annual study on Defensive gun use and found it is at least 94,000 a year now, but this is based on flawed data from the NCVS (you can read about the flawed in the CDC study, but it is the lowest estimate). You can read about this in this thread by u\/fargonian https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/gunpolitics\/comments\/6igkke\/2017_violence_policy_center_defensive_gun_use\/ Actually just recently a magazine ban got overturned because of the lack of supporting evidence, you can read about that in this article: https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2017\/06\/30\/federal-court-enjoins-california-large-capacity-magazine-confiscation\/ As for the NRA it is the biggest provider for gun safety education in the United States if not the world. They are against many of the research being done as it is often biased and unscientific, but that isn't something to fault them for rather you should fault the universities and researchers who sell themselves out for funding.","human_ref_B":"Why should this argument be about statistics when it is one of the constitutional amendments that allows all citizens to bear arms? Should these rights be chopped and changed because of different interpretations of statistics?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3821.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djw1rqr","c_root_id_B":"djw1zwc","created_at_utc_A":1499404134,"created_at_utc_B":1499404506,"score_A":4,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"So maybe this isn't what you're looking for but yes the NRA is full of shit and the reason is because of your gun ownership. The NRA is a commercial organization in support of and created by the gun industry. In a Darwinian sense, their existence is predicated upon more reasonable gun owners who do not *support* the NRA but do support it financially. It's actually their primary business model. It doesn't matter that you personally don't agree since you bought your gun from a member club (almost all legitimate gun sales send a portion of proceeded to the lobby). It's not a coincidence that there are not many people who want to \"take our guns\" nor are there people who want unregulated automatics but that's the \"debate\" in Washington. The entire idea is a farce that helps s&w stock.","human_ref_B":"The CDC had done a study on gun violence, you can read it here and furthermore you can read more about this in this informative post by u\/vegetarianrobots https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Firearms\/comments\/6421hq\/dispelling_the_myth_that_the_us_government_is\/ We have plenty of statistics from the FBI, CDC, NCVS, NSSF, ATF, and others but they are often twisted or misrepresented. The Violence Policy center released their annual study on Defensive gun use and found it is at least 94,000 a year now, but this is based on flawed data from the NCVS (you can read about the flawed in the CDC study, but it is the lowest estimate). You can read about this in this thread by u\/fargonian https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/gunpolitics\/comments\/6igkke\/2017_violence_policy_center_defensive_gun_use\/ Actually just recently a magazine ban got overturned because of the lack of supporting evidence, you can read about that in this article: https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2017\/06\/30\/federal-court-enjoins-california-large-capacity-magazine-confiscation\/ As for the NRA it is the biggest provider for gun safety education in the United States if not the world. They are against many of the research being done as it is often biased and unscientific, but that isn't something to fault them for rather you should fault the universities and researchers who sell themselves out for funding.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":372.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djw1l5r","c_root_id_B":"djw1zwc","created_at_utc_A":1499403828,"created_at_utc_B":1499404506,"score_A":2,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"> I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. The NRA would like to live in a world where there is no gun regulation. That is their explicit goal, and they would do anything to achieve it. They are making a cost\/benefit calculation that doing research on this topic would result in evidence that would hurt their cause. So they oppose the research. The phrase \"full of shit\" means someone is lying. The NRA is explicit and consistent in their goals and actions. Just because their goal (responsible regulation based on research vs. no regulation) is different than yours doesn't mean they are \"full of shit.\"","human_ref_B":"The CDC had done a study on gun violence, you can read it here and furthermore you can read more about this in this informative post by u\/vegetarianrobots https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Firearms\/comments\/6421hq\/dispelling_the_myth_that_the_us_government_is\/ We have plenty of statistics from the FBI, CDC, NCVS, NSSF, ATF, and others but they are often twisted or misrepresented. The Violence Policy center released their annual study on Defensive gun use and found it is at least 94,000 a year now, but this is based on flawed data from the NCVS (you can read about the flawed in the CDC study, but it is the lowest estimate). You can read about this in this thread by u\/fargonian https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/gunpolitics\/comments\/6igkke\/2017_violence_policy_center_defensive_gun_use\/ Actually just recently a magazine ban got overturned because of the lack of supporting evidence, you can read about that in this article: https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2017\/06\/30\/federal-court-enjoins-california-large-capacity-magazine-confiscation\/ As for the NRA it is the biggest provider for gun safety education in the United States if not the world. They are against many of the research being done as it is often biased and unscientific, but that isn't something to fault them for rather you should fault the universities and researchers who sell themselves out for funding.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":678.0,"score_ratio":14.0} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djwex3u","c_root_id_B":"djvzmfq","created_at_utc_A":1499432873,"created_at_utc_B":1499400685,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. The CDC was banned from *advocacy*, not research because of misbehavior on the subject. They are not and have never been, banned from conducting *research*. >I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. This research is ongoing, including by the CDC.","human_ref_B":"Why should this argument be about statistics when it is one of the constitutional amendments that allows all citizens to bear arms? Should these rights be chopped and changed because of different interpretations of statistics?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32188.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djwex3u","c_root_id_B":"djw1rqr","created_at_utc_A":1499432873,"created_at_utc_B":1499404134,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. The CDC was banned from *advocacy*, not research because of misbehavior on the subject. They are not and have never been, banned from conducting *research*. >I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. This research is ongoing, including by the CDC.","human_ref_B":"So maybe this isn't what you're looking for but yes the NRA is full of shit and the reason is because of your gun ownership. The NRA is a commercial organization in support of and created by the gun industry. In a Darwinian sense, their existence is predicated upon more reasonable gun owners who do not *support* the NRA but do support it financially. It's actually their primary business model. It doesn't matter that you personally don't agree since you bought your gun from a member club (almost all legitimate gun sales send a portion of proceeded to the lobby). It's not a coincidence that there are not many people who want to \"take our guns\" nor are there people who want unregulated automatics but that's the \"debate\" in Washington. The entire idea is a farce that helps s&w stock.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":28739.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djwcarv","c_root_id_B":"djwex3u","created_at_utc_A":1499428368,"created_at_utc_B":1499432873,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"There's a solid argument that no regulation is preferable, even if it is evidence-based. There are certainly those that argue that no guns is ideal and reduces crime rates. If the numbers show that's true, then an all out ban is in our future if we are to take your viewpoint (that evidence-based regulations are a good idea). We start with small things like background checks, but since there will always be violence, there will always be pushes for more regulation. There's no \"reasonable\" endpoint short of a ban, because as crime goes down, people's tolerance for it also goes down. But there's more to gun ownership than crime for many americans. For many of us, gun rights are worth a certain amount of crime. That is, even if a law would save lives, we would still prefer it never become law, because these laws have shown to be the creeping crud-the sliding slope has proven itself to be real. So the answer is to not cede a single inch. Otherwise, we risk losing something truly unique-something many americans consider to be their birthright and a tradition handed down from father to son and mother to daughter since the revolution. So from that perspective, the fact that the NRA opposes all regulation is a net positive.","human_ref_B":">By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. The CDC was banned from *advocacy*, not research because of misbehavior on the subject. They are not and have never been, banned from conducting *research*. >I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. This research is ongoing, including by the CDC.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4505.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djwex3u","c_root_id_B":"djw1l5r","created_at_utc_A":1499432873,"created_at_utc_B":1499403828,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. The CDC was banned from *advocacy*, not research because of misbehavior on the subject. They are not and have never been, banned from conducting *research*. >I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. This research is ongoing, including by the CDC.","human_ref_B":"> I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. The NRA would like to live in a world where there is no gun regulation. That is their explicit goal, and they would do anything to achieve it. They are making a cost\/benefit calculation that doing research on this topic would result in evidence that would hurt their cause. So they oppose the research. The phrase \"full of shit\" means someone is lying. The NRA is explicit and consistent in their goals and actions. Just because their goal (responsible regulation based on research vs. no regulation) is different than yours doesn't mean they are \"full of shit.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29045.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djw1l5r","c_root_id_B":"djw1rqr","created_at_utc_A":1499403828,"created_at_utc_B":1499404134,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. The NRA would like to live in a world where there is no gun regulation. That is their explicit goal, and they would do anything to achieve it. They are making a cost\/benefit calculation that doing research on this topic would result in evidence that would hurt their cause. So they oppose the research. The phrase \"full of shit\" means someone is lying. The NRA is explicit and consistent in their goals and actions. Just because their goal (responsible regulation based on research vs. no regulation) is different than yours doesn't mean they are \"full of shit.\"","human_ref_B":"So maybe this isn't what you're looking for but yes the NRA is full of shit and the reason is because of your gun ownership. The NRA is a commercial organization in support of and created by the gun industry. In a Darwinian sense, their existence is predicated upon more reasonable gun owners who do not *support* the NRA but do support it financially. It's actually their primary business model. It doesn't matter that you personally don't agree since you bought your gun from a member club (almost all legitimate gun sales send a portion of proceeded to the lobby). It's not a coincidence that there are not many people who want to \"take our guns\" nor are there people who want unregulated automatics but that's the \"debate\" in Washington. The entire idea is a farce that helps s&w stock.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":306.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djwj0ik","c_root_id_B":"djwcarv","created_at_utc_A":1499438121,"created_at_utc_B":1499428368,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Do you feel like more research on how effective speech restriction is in other places would be a good idea? Or on how restricting religion might lead to better societal outcomes? These are fundamental tenets of our society. That freedom of speech and religion could possibly be restricted for other societal gains under certain circumstances are irrelevant to us, because we feel that immeasurable other benefits (like freedom and liberty) are more important. Many Americans feel the right to bear arms is the same. At the end of the day, the NRA has clear, stated goals and they're a special interest group. It's totally understandable that they would wake up, eat, sleep, and breathe trying to protect the second amendment, so anything that they perceive as threatening it, they would oppose. And that's reasonable. If the research isn't going to protect the second amendment and it could potentially go against it, I would expect them to oppose it.","human_ref_B":"There's a solid argument that no regulation is preferable, even if it is evidence-based. There are certainly those that argue that no guns is ideal and reduces crime rates. If the numbers show that's true, then an all out ban is in our future if we are to take your viewpoint (that evidence-based regulations are a good idea). We start with small things like background checks, but since there will always be violence, there will always be pushes for more regulation. There's no \"reasonable\" endpoint short of a ban, because as crime goes down, people's tolerance for it also goes down. But there's more to gun ownership than crime for many americans. For many of us, gun rights are worth a certain amount of crime. That is, even if a law would save lives, we would still prefer it never become law, because these laws have shown to be the creeping crud-the sliding slope has proven itself to be real. So the answer is to not cede a single inch. Otherwise, we risk losing something truly unique-something many americans consider to be their birthright and a tradition handed down from father to son and mother to daughter since the revolution. So from that perspective, the fact that the NRA opposes all regulation is a net positive.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9753.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djwcarv","c_root_id_B":"djw1l5r","created_at_utc_A":1499428368,"created_at_utc_B":1499403828,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There's a solid argument that no regulation is preferable, even if it is evidence-based. There are certainly those that argue that no guns is ideal and reduces crime rates. If the numbers show that's true, then an all out ban is in our future if we are to take your viewpoint (that evidence-based regulations are a good idea). We start with small things like background checks, but since there will always be violence, there will always be pushes for more regulation. There's no \"reasonable\" endpoint short of a ban, because as crime goes down, people's tolerance for it also goes down. But there's more to gun ownership than crime for many americans. For many of us, gun rights are worth a certain amount of crime. That is, even if a law would save lives, we would still prefer it never become law, because these laws have shown to be the creeping crud-the sliding slope has proven itself to be real. So the answer is to not cede a single inch. Otherwise, we risk losing something truly unique-something many americans consider to be their birthright and a tradition handed down from father to son and mother to daughter since the revolution. So from that perspective, the fact that the NRA opposes all regulation is a net positive.","human_ref_B":"> I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. The NRA would like to live in a world where there is no gun regulation. That is their explicit goal, and they would do anything to achieve it. They are making a cost\/benefit calculation that doing research on this topic would result in evidence that would hurt their cause. So they oppose the research. The phrase \"full of shit\" means someone is lying. The NRA is explicit and consistent in their goals and actions. Just because their goal (responsible regulation based on research vs. no regulation) is different than yours doesn't mean they are \"full of shit.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24540.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djwj0ik","c_root_id_B":"djw1l5r","created_at_utc_A":1499438121,"created_at_utc_B":1499403828,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Do you feel like more research on how effective speech restriction is in other places would be a good idea? Or on how restricting religion might lead to better societal outcomes? These are fundamental tenets of our society. That freedom of speech and religion could possibly be restricted for other societal gains under certain circumstances are irrelevant to us, because we feel that immeasurable other benefits (like freedom and liberty) are more important. Many Americans feel the right to bear arms is the same. At the end of the day, the NRA has clear, stated goals and they're a special interest group. It's totally understandable that they would wake up, eat, sleep, and breathe trying to protect the second amendment, so anything that they perceive as threatening it, they would oppose. And that's reasonable. If the research isn't going to protect the second amendment and it could potentially go against it, I would expect them to oppose it.","human_ref_B":"> I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. The NRA would like to live in a world where there is no gun regulation. That is their explicit goal, and they would do anything to achieve it. They are making a cost\/benefit calculation that doing research on this topic would result in evidence that would hurt their cause. So they oppose the research. The phrase \"full of shit\" means someone is lying. The NRA is explicit and consistent in their goals and actions. Just because their goal (responsible regulation based on research vs. no regulation) is different than yours doesn't mean they are \"full of shit.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34293.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"6lr8tj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: I support gun ownership but the NRA is full of shit. So I am using that headline a bit salaciously, but I think there is some truth here. By opposing research on reducing gun violence, they are really hurting the case for responsible gun ownership. I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. Evidence supported policies would help bring the conversation away from squabbling ideologies IMO. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djx5k47","c_root_id_B":"djw1l5r","created_at_utc_A":1499461868,"created_at_utc_B":1499403828,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">By opposing research on reducing gun violence, They do not oppose research. Back in the 1990s the people in charge of that part of the CDC were caught admitting that they had a political goal of making guns socially unacceptable and in the end banned through their work. To this end, they commissioned studies that would provide headlines to support gun control. The prefect example is the Kellerman x times more likely to be killed by a gun in the home (thoroughly debunked). They even funded a pamphlet that had an anti-gun political message. In response to this, the NRA pushed Congress to pass a law prohibiting the CDC from engaging in politics. That's it, no politics. They were still allowed to study, but no more pushing the gun control agenda. Obama ordered them to do a study in 2013, and they complied, didn't break the law. But they only did that when explicitly ordered to. Otherwise, they don't want too many studies out there that don't promote the gun control agenda, so better to voluntarily do none at all and complain about the evil NRA, which itself helps promote the gun control agenda. Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg has been pumping millions of dollars into similarly biased studies, so don't worry, the \"research\" continues. >I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. The Democrats don't care. It takes a few seconds to research the fact that \"assault weapons\" are rarely used in crime, yet they are target #1 for a ban. It takes a few minutes to find that the immense power of the .50 BMG has not once in this country been leveraged to murder someone, yet that didn't keep California from banning it. Basic logic says magazine size doesn't affect suicide rates since you only need one bullet, but they use the number of suicides to try to ban normal-capacity magazines. The NRA is pushing for suppressors to be more easily available for hearing protection. This is science-based, even going by OSHA standards. A gun is just too loud, and even hearing protection can't fully protect in standard training sessions. Shooting our gun in self defense in your hallway, where you are not likely to have hearing protection, can cause instant permanent hearing damage from just that one shot. There is plenty else to criticize the NRA about. They are sometimes far too much \"in your face,\" turning off people, and they often conflate being conservative with supporting gun rights. They defer to police too much. They spend way too much on \"member communications\" that most members don't even like. But the flip side. They help locals set up hunting and shooting clubs, help finance clubhouses, insure the clubs, design safe ranges, train instructors and range safety officers, sanction competitions, and give scholarships to kids. They help send people to schools to teach firearms safety, but that program is opposed by the anti-gunners. I know, you don't hear much about these activities in the news. That's on purpose.","human_ref_B":"> I would like to live in a world where gun regulation is based on lots of research and cities\/states having a attempted a wide diversity of regulatory strategies. The NRA would like to live in a world where there is no gun regulation. That is their explicit goal, and they would do anything to achieve it. They are making a cost\/benefit calculation that doing research on this topic would result in evidence that would hurt their cause. So they oppose the research. The phrase \"full of shit\" means someone is lying. The NRA is explicit and consistent in their goals and actions. Just because their goal (responsible regulation based on research vs. no regulation) is different than yours doesn't mean they are \"full of shit.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":58040.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uvxqq","c_root_id_B":"d0uvh8x","created_at_utc_A":1457630039,"created_at_utc_B":1457629431,"score_A":90,"score_B":89,"human_ref_A":"Do people not hunt in Ireland? You hear a lot of shit in other countries about guns in the U.S. but I have come to learn that almost no one outside the U.S. actually understands the firearms issue here. 1. Legislation to ban firearms will only remove firearms form the possession of those inclined to follow the law. No amount of passing laws is going to convince gangs and criminals to turn in their guns. 2. Legally acquired firearms are seldom used in the commission of crimes. In fact those that legally acquire firearms have to walk a very thin line in order to maintain their right to carry. This makes them incredibly unlikely to commit a crime. 3. Did I mention we hunt in this country? 4. From outside the country you get a funny view of things, because you ONLY hear about the things that go wrong. What you don;t hear about is \"Several million responsible gun owners get through another day without incident.\" Because there is nothing to report there, just another day in the U.S. 5. did you know that in order to obtain a pistol I must first obtain a license to carry said pistol? Having a pistol without a license is punishable by 10 years in prison. To get my license I had to pay $150, just to pick up the paperwork. I provided 3 character references, interviewed with a sheriff, and then waited a year for my application to be promised. I would agree that there is room in this process for the requirement of a class in firearm safety, I have no idea why that is not required. Every individual gun I own must be listed on the permit, those are the only guns I am allowed to not carry. Carrying a gun not listed on my permit is the same as not having a permit. If I am convicted of ANY crime, my permit can, and in most cases will be pulled. I need to show my license every time I buy pistol ammo. If the ammo type is not for a gun that is listed on my permit, I can't have it. Now all this gets bypassed by criminals, because it's real easy for Pedro down the street to get guns into the country through Mexico. So the criminals get to bypass all this mess. So if the law says \"guns are banned and no one can have them\" the only people this affects are people who obey laws.","human_ref_B":"Perhaps if Ireland had legal gun ownerships it would not be so easy for England to dominate your country for centuries. During Irish War of Independence, lack of weapons was a huge problem for Irish, and a lot of early activity involved capturing weapons from British forces.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":608.0,"score_ratio":1.0112359551} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uvj1n","c_root_id_B":"d0uvxqq","created_at_utc_A":1457629500,"created_at_utc_B":1457630039,"score_A":5,"score_B":90,"human_ref_A":"> All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. I can do the same thing with a car. > OF COURSE guns kill people If you're prepared to agree that obesity can be blamed on forks. Guns, like anything else, are inanimate objects that have only as much power as the person holding them. They are tools. The argument to support gun ownership is very simple: I am a responsible adult. I have done nothing to hurt anyone. Ergo, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't do. You can't make the argument that I'm a danger by owning a firearm, because you have no basis on which to make that argument. I have hurt no one. I have shown nothing but the utmost responsibility with my freedom. Lastly, it IS for protection in my case. If someone breaks into my house in the night, are you going to be there to help me? My life and those of my family rest entirely on my ability to defend us at that point, and it is not for you to say what I should have at my disposal to do that, because it isn't your life on the line.","human_ref_B":"Do people not hunt in Ireland? You hear a lot of shit in other countries about guns in the U.S. but I have come to learn that almost no one outside the U.S. actually understands the firearms issue here. 1. Legislation to ban firearms will only remove firearms form the possession of those inclined to follow the law. No amount of passing laws is going to convince gangs and criminals to turn in their guns. 2. Legally acquired firearms are seldom used in the commission of crimes. In fact those that legally acquire firearms have to walk a very thin line in order to maintain their right to carry. This makes them incredibly unlikely to commit a crime. 3. Did I mention we hunt in this country? 4. From outside the country you get a funny view of things, because you ONLY hear about the things that go wrong. What you don;t hear about is \"Several million responsible gun owners get through another day without incident.\" Because there is nothing to report there, just another day in the U.S. 5. did you know that in order to obtain a pistol I must first obtain a license to carry said pistol? Having a pistol without a license is punishable by 10 years in prison. To get my license I had to pay $150, just to pick up the paperwork. I provided 3 character references, interviewed with a sheriff, and then waited a year for my application to be promised. I would agree that there is room in this process for the requirement of a class in firearm safety, I have no idea why that is not required. Every individual gun I own must be listed on the permit, those are the only guns I am allowed to not carry. Carrying a gun not listed on my permit is the same as not having a permit. If I am convicted of ANY crime, my permit can, and in most cases will be pulled. I need to show my license every time I buy pistol ammo. If the ammo type is not for a gun that is listed on my permit, I can't have it. Now all this gets bypassed by criminals, because it's real easy for Pedro down the street to get guns into the country through Mexico. So the criminals get to bypass all this mess. So if the law says \"guns are banned and no one can have them\" the only people this affects are people who obey laws.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":539.0,"score_ratio":18.0} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0v3syx","c_root_id_B":"d0uwgp3","created_at_utc_A":1457640204,"created_at_utc_B":1457630730,"score_A":58,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"According to an Obama commissioned CDC study, firearms are used for self defense at *minimum* nearly twice as often as for any crime, up to 10 times as often. >Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. That's somewhere between 200k and 2.7M instances *more than crimes that are committed* every year where individuals protect themselves from crime by using a gun, usually without even having to fire a single shot. Edit: left out the italicised portion.","human_ref_B":"You seem to have a lack of understanding of a very complex subject. You reference machineguns, which are extremely hard to come by in the US, as a result of the NFA, ATF and the bans of 34 and 86. In the last 70 years there have only been two murders with legally owned machineguns, and one of them was a cop. To keep it simple, just assume machineguns are not part of the argument as they have been moot since the 1930s. For clarification a machine gun is any weapon that can discharge more than one bullet per trigger pull, private ownership of one is next to impossible and not practical for anyone but an enthusiast. Your reference to machineguns seems to indicate you are possibly repeating factually incorrect information via Bloomberg, Sanders and Clinton who claim machineguns are used in rampages (none have) that have been more or less banned since the 1930s are to blame for our issues. You also reference your personal discomfort with being around firearms. Have you considered going to a class or asking a family friend to educate you on firearms safety and etiquette? I'll admit when I was first introduced to my friend's shotgun I felt like I was staring at an elephant in the room. Now I have several after only two years, on a college budget and frequent my local shooting range on the weekends. I enjoy target shooting for sport and recreation personally. Now a prime example of gun laws not being a causal issue, rather that larger issues like poverty and gang\/drug violence is the causal factor is the state of Vermont. Vermont has extremely lax firearms laws compared to most of the north east coast of the US. The state is rather wealthy and as a result lacks lots of crime that comes with large economic diversity. This state has some of the lowest crime rates in the nation, yet has lax gun laws. Are the gun laws what keeps crime low? No. The laws don't make any difference across the US on crime rates, it's the economic and social opportunities that the states have to offer provided by private or government means. Lastly if you like I could get into the major reasons for private ownership of firearms later.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9474.0,"score_ratio":1.7058823529} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uxfie","c_root_id_B":"d0v3syx","created_at_utc_A":1457632000,"created_at_utc_B":1457640204,"score_A":13,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"I'll address it point by point. > I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. There are many, many more stories about people using their firearms to protect their lives. \/r\/dgu is a subreddit dedicated to aggregating such stories, although it should not be considered an exhaustive list at all. The options you present are a false dichotomy, because there are many other options. If I don't have a child, I don't really have to worry about other people accessing my firearms. There are quick-access safes that can be used if you're worried about children around your firearms. That lady was extremely irresponsible with her firearm, and there are very, very simple ways to avoid that. >With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. Mass shootings, despite their media coverage, are still pretty rare here in the states. More people are killed each year in the US in deer-car collisions (200 deaths\/yr) than in mass shootings (around 160 a year). There's basically been no legislation that's been proposed short of full-on confiscation that would do essentially anything to combat mass shootings, as most of the perpetrators purchased their guns legally and were able to pass a NICS background check. >And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? The message is that a firearm is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Guns do not go off on their own, and require a human behind it in order to fire. The idea behind it is that the gun isn't the problem, it's the person. If someone is dangerous enough that they can't be trusted with a gun, they either should not be out in public either, or steps need to be taken to temporarily limit their rights through the courts. We have a system for this, but it is woefully underfunded. >I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. Why? You trust people around you almost constantly with things that could just as easily end your life. I do it for around an hour a day on my commute to and from work. >The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. First off, machine guns are effectively banned in the US and have been since 1986. They are still legal to own, but you have to jump through additional hoops as well as having a shit-ton of cash in order to buy one that can legally be transferred. For a pre-ban M-16, you're looking at around $14k+ at a minimum. A legal NFA item has not been used in a crime in almost a century. As for the rarity, why do you worry about it? You're much, much more likely to die on the way to the store than in a mass shooting. You engage in riskier behavior literally every day of your life. I've lived in the US (Florida) for my entire life and I don't walk around in fear of being killed by a mass shooter. >Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? A big sentiment in the US that may not necessarily exist in other countries is a healthy distrust for the government. Many, many people either do not trust or do not want to rely upon the government for assistance if there is basically any other way. An example would be that the police are not required to protect you, only to do their best to solve the crime and hold those accountable after the fact. If someone breaks into my house while I'm home, I can't really rely on the cops getting there quickly, as response times begin at usually 3-4 minutes in a good area, and up to 30+ minutes in a rural area. That's a lot of time to spend with a criminal with unknown intentions. Another big facet is that pretty much, the ship has sailed as far as the question of gun ownership. There's more guns than people in the US with north of 30% of people owning at least 1. There is no feasible or practical path to confiscation, so that option is always off the table.","human_ref_B":"According to an Obama commissioned CDC study, firearms are used for self defense at *minimum* nearly twice as often as for any crime, up to 10 times as often. >Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. That's somewhere between 200k and 2.7M instances *more than crimes that are committed* every year where individuals protect themselves from crime by using a gun, usually without even having to fire a single shot. Edit: left out the italicised portion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8204.0,"score_ratio":4.4615384615} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0v3syx","c_root_id_B":"d0uwa40","created_at_utc_A":1457640204,"created_at_utc_B":1457630491,"score_A":58,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"According to an Obama commissioned CDC study, firearms are used for self defense at *minimum* nearly twice as often as for any crime, up to 10 times as often. >Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. That's somewhere between 200k and 2.7M instances *more than crimes that are committed* every year where individuals protect themselves from crime by using a gun, usually without even having to fire a single shot. Edit: left out the italicised portion.","human_ref_B":">Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. Sometimes lives need ending. Guns are the most effective means of self defense.they aren't perfect, but I'd rather live in a slightly more dangerous state with the means of taking my safety into my own hands than living in a safer state where I'm trusting the government with my safety. >The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. False dichotomy. It's rather easy to have access to guns without allowing children to get them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9713.0,"score_ratio":6.4444444444} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0v3syx","c_root_id_B":"d0v1tqk","created_at_utc_A":1457640204,"created_at_utc_B":1457637673,"score_A":58,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"According to an Obama commissioned CDC study, firearms are used for self defense at *minimum* nearly twice as often as for any crime, up to 10 times as often. >Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. That's somewhere between 200k and 2.7M instances *more than crimes that are committed* every year where individuals protect themselves from crime by using a gun, usually without even having to fire a single shot. Edit: left out the italicised portion.","human_ref_B":"Here's the problem with gun laws here in the US. They only apply to law abiding citizens. No amount of legislation or constitution amendments will take the guns away from those that are looking to use them for a bad reason. Taking guns away from good people that obey the law and procedures just makes them more vulnerable to those that don't give a shit what the law says because they are going to rob you, shoot up the mall, etc etc regardless of if they are \"allowed\" to. I am a supporter of being able to own a gun, but I don't own a gun because the process to get one in New York is a huge pain in the ass for someone doing it legally. You have to go pay $20 or so to get the application, you have to go to the nearest sheriff office and have them mail a background check to you clearing you to own a gun, then you have to go get your fingerprints taken for $175 on only the second or 4th Wednesday a month from like 12PM-2PM, then you have to get 3 references that they will call and ask about you, and then once you make it through all that, about 9 months is the fastest that I have seen someone actually get their permit. It isn't as easy as someone not from here thinks, we don't all just have guns laying around like the internet leads the rest of the world to believe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2531.0,"score_ratio":9.6666666667} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0v3syx","c_root_id_B":"d0uvj1n","created_at_utc_A":1457640204,"created_at_utc_B":1457629500,"score_A":58,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"According to an Obama commissioned CDC study, firearms are used for self defense at *minimum* nearly twice as often as for any crime, up to 10 times as often. >Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. That's somewhere between 200k and 2.7M instances *more than crimes that are committed* every year where individuals protect themselves from crime by using a gun, usually without even having to fire a single shot. Edit: left out the italicised portion.","human_ref_B":"> All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. I can do the same thing with a car. > OF COURSE guns kill people If you're prepared to agree that obesity can be blamed on forks. Guns, like anything else, are inanimate objects that have only as much power as the person holding them. They are tools. The argument to support gun ownership is very simple: I am a responsible adult. I have done nothing to hurt anyone. Ergo, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't do. You can't make the argument that I'm a danger by owning a firearm, because you have no basis on which to make that argument. I have hurt no one. I have shown nothing but the utmost responsibility with my freedom. Lastly, it IS for protection in my case. If someone breaks into my house in the night, are you going to be there to help me? My life and those of my family rest entirely on my ability to defend us at that point, and it is not for you to say what I should have at my disposal to do that, because it isn't your life on the line.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10704.0,"score_ratio":11.6} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uwa40","c_root_id_B":"d0uwgp3","created_at_utc_A":1457630491,"created_at_utc_B":1457630730,"score_A":9,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":">Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. Sometimes lives need ending. Guns are the most effective means of self defense.they aren't perfect, but I'd rather live in a slightly more dangerous state with the means of taking my safety into my own hands than living in a safer state where I'm trusting the government with my safety. >The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. False dichotomy. It's rather easy to have access to guns without allowing children to get them.","human_ref_B":"You seem to have a lack of understanding of a very complex subject. You reference machineguns, which are extremely hard to come by in the US, as a result of the NFA, ATF and the bans of 34 and 86. In the last 70 years there have only been two murders with legally owned machineguns, and one of them was a cop. To keep it simple, just assume machineguns are not part of the argument as they have been moot since the 1930s. For clarification a machine gun is any weapon that can discharge more than one bullet per trigger pull, private ownership of one is next to impossible and not practical for anyone but an enthusiast. Your reference to machineguns seems to indicate you are possibly repeating factually incorrect information via Bloomberg, Sanders and Clinton who claim machineguns are used in rampages (none have) that have been more or less banned since the 1930s are to blame for our issues. You also reference your personal discomfort with being around firearms. Have you considered going to a class or asking a family friend to educate you on firearms safety and etiquette? I'll admit when I was first introduced to my friend's shotgun I felt like I was staring at an elephant in the room. Now I have several after only two years, on a college budget and frequent my local shooting range on the weekends. I enjoy target shooting for sport and recreation personally. Now a prime example of gun laws not being a causal issue, rather that larger issues like poverty and gang\/drug violence is the causal factor is the state of Vermont. Vermont has extremely lax firearms laws compared to most of the north east coast of the US. The state is rather wealthy and as a result lacks lots of crime that comes with large economic diversity. This state has some of the lowest crime rates in the nation, yet has lax gun laws. Are the gun laws what keeps crime low? No. The laws don't make any difference across the US on crime rates, it's the economic and social opportunities that the states have to offer provided by private or government means. Lastly if you like I could get into the major reasons for private ownership of firearms later.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":239.0,"score_ratio":3.7777777778} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uvj1n","c_root_id_B":"d0uwgp3","created_at_utc_A":1457629500,"created_at_utc_B":1457630730,"score_A":5,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"> All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. I can do the same thing with a car. > OF COURSE guns kill people If you're prepared to agree that obesity can be blamed on forks. Guns, like anything else, are inanimate objects that have only as much power as the person holding them. They are tools. The argument to support gun ownership is very simple: I am a responsible adult. I have done nothing to hurt anyone. Ergo, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't do. You can't make the argument that I'm a danger by owning a firearm, because you have no basis on which to make that argument. I have hurt no one. I have shown nothing but the utmost responsibility with my freedom. Lastly, it IS for protection in my case. If someone breaks into my house in the night, are you going to be there to help me? My life and those of my family rest entirely on my ability to defend us at that point, and it is not for you to say what I should have at my disposal to do that, because it isn't your life on the line.","human_ref_B":"You seem to have a lack of understanding of a very complex subject. You reference machineguns, which are extremely hard to come by in the US, as a result of the NFA, ATF and the bans of 34 and 86. In the last 70 years there have only been two murders with legally owned machineguns, and one of them was a cop. To keep it simple, just assume machineguns are not part of the argument as they have been moot since the 1930s. For clarification a machine gun is any weapon that can discharge more than one bullet per trigger pull, private ownership of one is next to impossible and not practical for anyone but an enthusiast. Your reference to machineguns seems to indicate you are possibly repeating factually incorrect information via Bloomberg, Sanders and Clinton who claim machineguns are used in rampages (none have) that have been more or less banned since the 1930s are to blame for our issues. You also reference your personal discomfort with being around firearms. Have you considered going to a class or asking a family friend to educate you on firearms safety and etiquette? I'll admit when I was first introduced to my friend's shotgun I felt like I was staring at an elephant in the room. Now I have several after only two years, on a college budget and frequent my local shooting range on the weekends. I enjoy target shooting for sport and recreation personally. Now a prime example of gun laws not being a causal issue, rather that larger issues like poverty and gang\/drug violence is the causal factor is the state of Vermont. Vermont has extremely lax firearms laws compared to most of the north east coast of the US. The state is rather wealthy and as a result lacks lots of crime that comes with large economic diversity. This state has some of the lowest crime rates in the nation, yet has lax gun laws. Are the gun laws what keeps crime low? No. The laws don't make any difference across the US on crime rates, it's the economic and social opportunities that the states have to offer provided by private or government means. Lastly if you like I could get into the major reasons for private ownership of firearms later.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1230.0,"score_ratio":6.8} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uxfie","c_root_id_B":"d0vcg6g","created_at_utc_A":1457632000,"created_at_utc_B":1457651723,"score_A":13,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I'll address it point by point. > I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. There are many, many more stories about people using their firearms to protect their lives. \/r\/dgu is a subreddit dedicated to aggregating such stories, although it should not be considered an exhaustive list at all. The options you present are a false dichotomy, because there are many other options. If I don't have a child, I don't really have to worry about other people accessing my firearms. There are quick-access safes that can be used if you're worried about children around your firearms. That lady was extremely irresponsible with her firearm, and there are very, very simple ways to avoid that. >With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. Mass shootings, despite their media coverage, are still pretty rare here in the states. More people are killed each year in the US in deer-car collisions (200 deaths\/yr) than in mass shootings (around 160 a year). There's basically been no legislation that's been proposed short of full-on confiscation that would do essentially anything to combat mass shootings, as most of the perpetrators purchased their guns legally and were able to pass a NICS background check. >And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? The message is that a firearm is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Guns do not go off on their own, and require a human behind it in order to fire. The idea behind it is that the gun isn't the problem, it's the person. If someone is dangerous enough that they can't be trusted with a gun, they either should not be out in public either, or steps need to be taken to temporarily limit their rights through the courts. We have a system for this, but it is woefully underfunded. >I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. Why? You trust people around you almost constantly with things that could just as easily end your life. I do it for around an hour a day on my commute to and from work. >The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. First off, machine guns are effectively banned in the US and have been since 1986. They are still legal to own, but you have to jump through additional hoops as well as having a shit-ton of cash in order to buy one that can legally be transferred. For a pre-ban M-16, you're looking at around $14k+ at a minimum. A legal NFA item has not been used in a crime in almost a century. As for the rarity, why do you worry about it? You're much, much more likely to die on the way to the store than in a mass shooting. You engage in riskier behavior literally every day of your life. I've lived in the US (Florida) for my entire life and I don't walk around in fear of being killed by a mass shooter. >Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? A big sentiment in the US that may not necessarily exist in other countries is a healthy distrust for the government. Many, many people either do not trust or do not want to rely upon the government for assistance if there is basically any other way. An example would be that the police are not required to protect you, only to do their best to solve the crime and hold those accountable after the fact. If someone breaks into my house while I'm home, I can't really rely on the cops getting there quickly, as response times begin at usually 3-4 minutes in a good area, and up to 30+ minutes in a rural area. That's a lot of time to spend with a criminal with unknown intentions. Another big facet is that pretty much, the ship has sailed as far as the question of gun ownership. There's more guns than people in the US with north of 30% of people owning at least 1. There is no feasible or practical path to confiscation, so that option is always off the table.","human_ref_B":"This is actually simple to check- Ireland's gun laws don't go back to antiquity. Effectively, Ireland banned handgun ownership in 1972- requiring them to be turned in to the police temporarily, and then refusing to give them back afterward. Sneaky, but got the job done. Ireland's homicide rate did not go down afterward. Removing the most convenient implement of homicide had no discernible effects on how often one Irishman kills another one.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19723.0,"score_ratio":1.0769230769} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0vcg6g","c_root_id_B":"d0uwa40","created_at_utc_A":1457651723,"created_at_utc_B":1457630491,"score_A":14,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"This is actually simple to check- Ireland's gun laws don't go back to antiquity. Effectively, Ireland banned handgun ownership in 1972- requiring them to be turned in to the police temporarily, and then refusing to give them back afterward. Sneaky, but got the job done. Ireland's homicide rate did not go down afterward. Removing the most convenient implement of homicide had no discernible effects on how often one Irishman kills another one.","human_ref_B":">Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. Sometimes lives need ending. Guns are the most effective means of self defense.they aren't perfect, but I'd rather live in a slightly more dangerous state with the means of taking my safety into my own hands than living in a safer state where I'm trusting the government with my safety. >The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. False dichotomy. It's rather easy to have access to guns without allowing children to get them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21232.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0v1tqk","c_root_id_B":"d0vcg6g","created_at_utc_A":1457637673,"created_at_utc_B":1457651723,"score_A":6,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Here's the problem with gun laws here in the US. They only apply to law abiding citizens. No amount of legislation or constitution amendments will take the guns away from those that are looking to use them for a bad reason. Taking guns away from good people that obey the law and procedures just makes them more vulnerable to those that don't give a shit what the law says because they are going to rob you, shoot up the mall, etc etc regardless of if they are \"allowed\" to. I am a supporter of being able to own a gun, but I don't own a gun because the process to get one in New York is a huge pain in the ass for someone doing it legally. You have to go pay $20 or so to get the application, you have to go to the nearest sheriff office and have them mail a background check to you clearing you to own a gun, then you have to go get your fingerprints taken for $175 on only the second or 4th Wednesday a month from like 12PM-2PM, then you have to get 3 references that they will call and ask about you, and then once you make it through all that, about 9 months is the fastest that I have seen someone actually get their permit. It isn't as easy as someone not from here thinks, we don't all just have guns laying around like the internet leads the rest of the world to believe.","human_ref_B":"This is actually simple to check- Ireland's gun laws don't go back to antiquity. Effectively, Ireland banned handgun ownership in 1972- requiring them to be turned in to the police temporarily, and then refusing to give them back afterward. Sneaky, but got the job done. Ireland's homicide rate did not go down afterward. Removing the most convenient implement of homicide had no discernible effects on how often one Irishman kills another one.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14050.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uvj1n","c_root_id_B":"d0vcg6g","created_at_utc_A":1457629500,"created_at_utc_B":1457651723,"score_A":5,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"> All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. I can do the same thing with a car. > OF COURSE guns kill people If you're prepared to agree that obesity can be blamed on forks. Guns, like anything else, are inanimate objects that have only as much power as the person holding them. They are tools. The argument to support gun ownership is very simple: I am a responsible adult. I have done nothing to hurt anyone. Ergo, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't do. You can't make the argument that I'm a danger by owning a firearm, because you have no basis on which to make that argument. I have hurt no one. I have shown nothing but the utmost responsibility with my freedom. Lastly, it IS for protection in my case. If someone breaks into my house in the night, are you going to be there to help me? My life and those of my family rest entirely on my ability to defend us at that point, and it is not for you to say what I should have at my disposal to do that, because it isn't your life on the line.","human_ref_B":"This is actually simple to check- Ireland's gun laws don't go back to antiquity. Effectively, Ireland banned handgun ownership in 1972- requiring them to be turned in to the police temporarily, and then refusing to give them back afterward. Sneaky, but got the job done. Ireland's homicide rate did not go down afterward. Removing the most convenient implement of homicide had no discernible effects on how often one Irishman kills another one.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22223.0,"score_ratio":2.8} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0v57cp","c_root_id_B":"d0vcg6g","created_at_utc_A":1457641983,"created_at_utc_B":1457651723,"score_A":5,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":">Guns cause nothing but problems. This is simply not true. Many uses of guns are not problematic. In the US at least, millions of police and military members go to work armed and do a good job protecting us. What's more, most gun uses are also not problematic and cause outcomes that are not problematic. For instance, I have never had a problem outcome from a trip to the target range. I believe it is fair to say that tens of millions of others have the same experience. These people get enjoyment out of the sport and activity, so there are some positive outcomes where there are no negative outcomes. >With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, There aren't many, and the number of fatalities is *incredibly* low, so it just isn't exactly mission critical. >I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. Well it's a constitutional issue, meaning it has to be an amendment which will only pass with overwhelming support. Currently, there are a massive number of people in the US who own guns or support gun rights. The majority of people in the US support loosening or keeping gun laws the same. So the law isn't changing any time soon. That's besides the issue of whether or not any of these supposed common sense laws would actually work. In a country with 360-400 million guns, you can't just ban them. > What even is the message here? It means there are no guns walking around the street killing people, and that's true. There must be someone with murderous intent or a reckless understanding of basic gun safety if someone is to be killed with a gun. It requires human interaction. I think you understand that. >Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Someone could mow people down with their car, do you get the same fear when walking on the sidewalk? Outside of emotional appeals about the tragedy of dead children, I never actually hear any reasonable reasons to support stricter gun laws. It's a basic human right to self defense, guns allow the playing field to be equalized so a 95lb woman can have a chance against a 250lb attacker who doesn't care about gun laws in the slightest. There are problems that are at the root of the symptom of people being shot, and our time and resources are better spent working on *those*, the causes of the symptoms, rather than the symptom itself. This is true not just because it would work, but because it's better for everyone. Instead of taking away from law abiding citizens, we *give* to those most in need-in the form of education and social safety nets for the poor and mental health treatment for those who need it. Why have anyone lose when everyone can win?","human_ref_B":"This is actually simple to check- Ireland's gun laws don't go back to antiquity. Effectively, Ireland banned handgun ownership in 1972- requiring them to be turned in to the police temporarily, and then refusing to give them back afterward. Sneaky, but got the job done. Ireland's homicide rate did not go down afterward. Removing the most convenient implement of homicide had no discernible effects on how often one Irishman kills another one.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9740.0,"score_ratio":2.8} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0vbv4f","c_root_id_B":"d0vcg6g","created_at_utc_A":1457650832,"created_at_utc_B":1457651723,"score_A":4,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Legitimate reasons for owning guns: 1. Hunting (subdivided between sustenance, management, and sport; but usually all three are done at the same time) 2. Target Shooting 3. Defense of Self against wild animals 4. Defense of property against wild animals 5. Defense of self against criminals 6. Defense of property against criminals 7. Collection of historically relevant artifacts You to provide arguments as to why some of these would not count as legitimate reasons to own guns, however, unless you can argue against *all* of them, then you would have to agree there are some legitimate reasons to own guns. Personally, I own guns for reasons 1, 2, and 7. There is a good chance that 3 and 4 will also be added to that list depending on where I end up working.","human_ref_B":"This is actually simple to check- Ireland's gun laws don't go back to antiquity. Effectively, Ireland banned handgun ownership in 1972- requiring them to be turned in to the police temporarily, and then refusing to give them back afterward. Sneaky, but got the job done. Ireland's homicide rate did not go down afterward. Removing the most convenient implement of homicide had no discernible effects on how often one Irishman kills another one.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":891.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0vb5al","c_root_id_B":"d0vcg6g","created_at_utc_A":1457649766,"created_at_utc_B":1457651723,"score_A":4,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Canadian here, own gun. Never had to shoot somebody","human_ref_B":"This is actually simple to check- Ireland's gun laws don't go back to antiquity. Effectively, Ireland banned handgun ownership in 1972- requiring them to be turned in to the police temporarily, and then refusing to give them back afterward. Sneaky, but got the job done. Ireland's homicide rate did not go down afterward. Removing the most convenient implement of homicide had no discernible effects on how often one Irishman kills another one.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1957.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uwa40","c_root_id_B":"d0uxfie","created_at_utc_A":1457630491,"created_at_utc_B":1457632000,"score_A":9,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":">Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. Sometimes lives need ending. Guns are the most effective means of self defense.they aren't perfect, but I'd rather live in a slightly more dangerous state with the means of taking my safety into my own hands than living in a safer state where I'm trusting the government with my safety. >The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. False dichotomy. It's rather easy to have access to guns without allowing children to get them.","human_ref_B":"I'll address it point by point. > I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. There are many, many more stories about people using their firearms to protect their lives. \/r\/dgu is a subreddit dedicated to aggregating such stories, although it should not be considered an exhaustive list at all. The options you present are a false dichotomy, because there are many other options. If I don't have a child, I don't really have to worry about other people accessing my firearms. There are quick-access safes that can be used if you're worried about children around your firearms. That lady was extremely irresponsible with her firearm, and there are very, very simple ways to avoid that. >With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. Mass shootings, despite their media coverage, are still pretty rare here in the states. More people are killed each year in the US in deer-car collisions (200 deaths\/yr) than in mass shootings (around 160 a year). There's basically been no legislation that's been proposed short of full-on confiscation that would do essentially anything to combat mass shootings, as most of the perpetrators purchased their guns legally and were able to pass a NICS background check. >And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? The message is that a firearm is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Guns do not go off on their own, and require a human behind it in order to fire. The idea behind it is that the gun isn't the problem, it's the person. If someone is dangerous enough that they can't be trusted with a gun, they either should not be out in public either, or steps need to be taken to temporarily limit their rights through the courts. We have a system for this, but it is woefully underfunded. >I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. Why? You trust people around you almost constantly with things that could just as easily end your life. I do it for around an hour a day on my commute to and from work. >The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. First off, machine guns are effectively banned in the US and have been since 1986. They are still legal to own, but you have to jump through additional hoops as well as having a shit-ton of cash in order to buy one that can legally be transferred. For a pre-ban M-16, you're looking at around $14k+ at a minimum. A legal NFA item has not been used in a crime in almost a century. As for the rarity, why do you worry about it? You're much, much more likely to die on the way to the store than in a mass shooting. You engage in riskier behavior literally every day of your life. I've lived in the US (Florida) for my entire life and I don't walk around in fear of being killed by a mass shooter. >Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? A big sentiment in the US that may not necessarily exist in other countries is a healthy distrust for the government. Many, many people either do not trust or do not want to rely upon the government for assistance if there is basically any other way. An example would be that the police are not required to protect you, only to do their best to solve the crime and hold those accountable after the fact. If someone breaks into my house while I'm home, I can't really rely on the cops getting there quickly, as response times begin at usually 3-4 minutes in a good area, and up to 30+ minutes in a rural area. That's a lot of time to spend with a criminal with unknown intentions. Another big facet is that pretty much, the ship has sailed as far as the question of gun ownership. There's more guns than people in the US with north of 30% of people owning at least 1. There is no feasible or practical path to confiscation, so that option is always off the table.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1509.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uvj1n","c_root_id_B":"d0uxfie","created_at_utc_A":1457629500,"created_at_utc_B":1457632000,"score_A":5,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"> All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. I can do the same thing with a car. > OF COURSE guns kill people If you're prepared to agree that obesity can be blamed on forks. Guns, like anything else, are inanimate objects that have only as much power as the person holding them. They are tools. The argument to support gun ownership is very simple: I am a responsible adult. I have done nothing to hurt anyone. Ergo, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't do. You can't make the argument that I'm a danger by owning a firearm, because you have no basis on which to make that argument. I have hurt no one. I have shown nothing but the utmost responsibility with my freedom. Lastly, it IS for protection in my case. If someone breaks into my house in the night, are you going to be there to help me? My life and those of my family rest entirely on my ability to defend us at that point, and it is not for you to say what I should have at my disposal to do that, because it isn't your life on the line.","human_ref_B":"I'll address it point by point. > I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. There are many, many more stories about people using their firearms to protect their lives. \/r\/dgu is a subreddit dedicated to aggregating such stories, although it should not be considered an exhaustive list at all. The options you present are a false dichotomy, because there are many other options. If I don't have a child, I don't really have to worry about other people accessing my firearms. There are quick-access safes that can be used if you're worried about children around your firearms. That lady was extremely irresponsible with her firearm, and there are very, very simple ways to avoid that. >With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. Mass shootings, despite their media coverage, are still pretty rare here in the states. More people are killed each year in the US in deer-car collisions (200 deaths\/yr) than in mass shootings (around 160 a year). There's basically been no legislation that's been proposed short of full-on confiscation that would do essentially anything to combat mass shootings, as most of the perpetrators purchased their guns legally and were able to pass a NICS background check. >And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? The message is that a firearm is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Guns do not go off on their own, and require a human behind it in order to fire. The idea behind it is that the gun isn't the problem, it's the person. If someone is dangerous enough that they can't be trusted with a gun, they either should not be out in public either, or steps need to be taken to temporarily limit their rights through the courts. We have a system for this, but it is woefully underfunded. >I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. Why? You trust people around you almost constantly with things that could just as easily end your life. I do it for around an hour a day on my commute to and from work. >The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. First off, machine guns are effectively banned in the US and have been since 1986. They are still legal to own, but you have to jump through additional hoops as well as having a shit-ton of cash in order to buy one that can legally be transferred. For a pre-ban M-16, you're looking at around $14k+ at a minimum. A legal NFA item has not been used in a crime in almost a century. As for the rarity, why do you worry about it? You're much, much more likely to die on the way to the store than in a mass shooting. You engage in riskier behavior literally every day of your life. I've lived in the US (Florida) for my entire life and I don't walk around in fear of being killed by a mass shooter. >Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? A big sentiment in the US that may not necessarily exist in other countries is a healthy distrust for the government. Many, many people either do not trust or do not want to rely upon the government for assistance if there is basically any other way. An example would be that the police are not required to protect you, only to do their best to solve the crime and hold those accountable after the fact. If someone breaks into my house while I'm home, I can't really rely on the cops getting there quickly, as response times begin at usually 3-4 minutes in a good area, and up to 30+ minutes in a rural area. That's a lot of time to spend with a criminal with unknown intentions. Another big facet is that pretty much, the ship has sailed as far as the question of gun ownership. There's more guns than people in the US with north of 30% of people owning at least 1. There is no feasible or practical path to confiscation, so that option is always off the table.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2500.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uwa40","c_root_id_B":"d0uvj1n","created_at_utc_A":1457630491,"created_at_utc_B":1457629500,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. Sometimes lives need ending. Guns are the most effective means of self defense.they aren't perfect, but I'd rather live in a slightly more dangerous state with the means of taking my safety into my own hands than living in a safer state where I'm trusting the government with my safety. >The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. False dichotomy. It's rather easy to have access to guns without allowing children to get them.","human_ref_B":"> All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. I can do the same thing with a car. > OF COURSE guns kill people If you're prepared to agree that obesity can be blamed on forks. Guns, like anything else, are inanimate objects that have only as much power as the person holding them. They are tools. The argument to support gun ownership is very simple: I am a responsible adult. I have done nothing to hurt anyone. Ergo, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't do. You can't make the argument that I'm a danger by owning a firearm, because you have no basis on which to make that argument. I have hurt no one. I have shown nothing but the utmost responsibility with my freedom. Lastly, it IS for protection in my case. If someone breaks into my house in the night, are you going to be there to help me? My life and those of my family rest entirely on my ability to defend us at that point, and it is not for you to say what I should have at my disposal to do that, because it isn't your life on the line.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":991.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0v1tqk","c_root_id_B":"d0uvj1n","created_at_utc_A":1457637673,"created_at_utc_B":1457629500,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Here's the problem with gun laws here in the US. They only apply to law abiding citizens. No amount of legislation or constitution amendments will take the guns away from those that are looking to use them for a bad reason. Taking guns away from good people that obey the law and procedures just makes them more vulnerable to those that don't give a shit what the law says because they are going to rob you, shoot up the mall, etc etc regardless of if they are \"allowed\" to. I am a supporter of being able to own a gun, but I don't own a gun because the process to get one in New York is a huge pain in the ass for someone doing it legally. You have to go pay $20 or so to get the application, you have to go to the nearest sheriff office and have them mail a background check to you clearing you to own a gun, then you have to go get your fingerprints taken for $175 on only the second or 4th Wednesday a month from like 12PM-2PM, then you have to get 3 references that they will call and ask about you, and then once you make it through all that, about 9 months is the fastest that I have seen someone actually get their permit. It isn't as easy as someone not from here thinks, we don't all just have guns laying around like the internet leads the rest of the world to believe.","human_ref_B":"> All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. I can do the same thing with a car. > OF COURSE guns kill people If you're prepared to agree that obesity can be blamed on forks. Guns, like anything else, are inanimate objects that have only as much power as the person holding them. They are tools. The argument to support gun ownership is very simple: I am a responsible adult. I have done nothing to hurt anyone. Ergo, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't do. You can't make the argument that I'm a danger by owning a firearm, because you have no basis on which to make that argument. I have hurt no one. I have shown nothing but the utmost responsibility with my freedom. Lastly, it IS for protection in my case. If someone breaks into my house in the night, are you going to be there to help me? My life and those of my family rest entirely on my ability to defend us at that point, and it is not for you to say what I should have at my disposal to do that, because it isn't your life on the line.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8173.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0uvj1n","c_root_id_B":"d0vkiqd","created_at_utc_A":1457629500,"created_at_utc_B":1457667214,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. I can do the same thing with a car. > OF COURSE guns kill people If you're prepared to agree that obesity can be blamed on forks. Guns, like anything else, are inanimate objects that have only as much power as the person holding them. They are tools. The argument to support gun ownership is very simple: I am a responsible adult. I have done nothing to hurt anyone. Ergo, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't do. You can't make the argument that I'm a danger by owning a firearm, because you have no basis on which to make that argument. I have hurt no one. I have shown nothing but the utmost responsibility with my freedom. Lastly, it IS for protection in my case. If someone breaks into my house in the night, are you going to be there to help me? My life and those of my family rest entirely on my ability to defend us at that point, and it is not for you to say what I should have at my disposal to do that, because it isn't your life on the line.","human_ref_B":"Ok - simple case for gun ownership: I own 400 acres of land in an area where law enforcement has a 45 minute response time on average because we are an in-incorporated township in the middle of a county of 10,000+ square miles. We have livestock that are necessary to our livelihood. Losing a few dozen chickens to a coyote or a few lambs to wolves can in fact mean the difference between being fed and going to bed hungry. We have a real problem with gophers. And we have a problem with wild boar So we walk our fence line with a .45 strapped to our waist, and we go take care of our gopher problem with a bushmaster, complete with scope, and a half-dozen pre-loaded magazines. At the end of the day, we go to bed, and we earnestly pray that no one comes and robs us or worse, because we are more than 5 miles from the nearest neighbor. So yeah, we NEED guns. Sorry your little urban lifestyle hasn't introduced you to the fact that some tools have purposes beyond your experience.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":37714.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0v57cp","c_root_id_B":"d0vkiqd","created_at_utc_A":1457641983,"created_at_utc_B":1457667214,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":">Guns cause nothing but problems. This is simply not true. Many uses of guns are not problematic. In the US at least, millions of police and military members go to work armed and do a good job protecting us. What's more, most gun uses are also not problematic and cause outcomes that are not problematic. For instance, I have never had a problem outcome from a trip to the target range. I believe it is fair to say that tens of millions of others have the same experience. These people get enjoyment out of the sport and activity, so there are some positive outcomes where there are no negative outcomes. >With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, There aren't many, and the number of fatalities is *incredibly* low, so it just isn't exactly mission critical. >I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. Well it's a constitutional issue, meaning it has to be an amendment which will only pass with overwhelming support. Currently, there are a massive number of people in the US who own guns or support gun rights. The majority of people in the US support loosening or keeping gun laws the same. So the law isn't changing any time soon. That's besides the issue of whether or not any of these supposed common sense laws would actually work. In a country with 360-400 million guns, you can't just ban them. > What even is the message here? It means there are no guns walking around the street killing people, and that's true. There must be someone with murderous intent or a reckless understanding of basic gun safety if someone is to be killed with a gun. It requires human interaction. I think you understand that. >Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Someone could mow people down with their car, do you get the same fear when walking on the sidewalk? Outside of emotional appeals about the tragedy of dead children, I never actually hear any reasonable reasons to support stricter gun laws. It's a basic human right to self defense, guns allow the playing field to be equalized so a 95lb woman can have a chance against a 250lb attacker who doesn't care about gun laws in the slightest. There are problems that are at the root of the symptom of people being shot, and our time and resources are better spent working on *those*, the causes of the symptoms, rather than the symptom itself. This is true not just because it would work, but because it's better for everyone. Instead of taking away from law abiding citizens, we *give* to those most in need-in the form of education and social safety nets for the poor and mental health treatment for those who need it. Why have anyone lose when everyone can win?","human_ref_B":"Ok - simple case for gun ownership: I own 400 acres of land in an area where law enforcement has a 45 minute response time on average because we are an in-incorporated township in the middle of a county of 10,000+ square miles. We have livestock that are necessary to our livelihood. Losing a few dozen chickens to a coyote or a few lambs to wolves can in fact mean the difference between being fed and going to bed hungry. We have a real problem with gophers. And we have a problem with wild boar So we walk our fence line with a .45 strapped to our waist, and we go take care of our gopher problem with a bushmaster, complete with scope, and a half-dozen pre-loaded magazines. At the end of the day, we go to bed, and we earnestly pray that no one comes and robs us or worse, because we are more than 5 miles from the nearest neighbor. So yeah, we NEED guns. Sorry your little urban lifestyle hasn't introduced you to the fact that some tools have purposes beyond your experience.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25231.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0vbv4f","c_root_id_B":"d0vkiqd","created_at_utc_A":1457650832,"created_at_utc_B":1457667214,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Legitimate reasons for owning guns: 1. Hunting (subdivided between sustenance, management, and sport; but usually all three are done at the same time) 2. Target Shooting 3. Defense of Self against wild animals 4. Defense of property against wild animals 5. Defense of self against criminals 6. Defense of property against criminals 7. Collection of historically relevant artifacts You to provide arguments as to why some of these would not count as legitimate reasons to own guns, however, unless you can argue against *all* of them, then you would have to agree there are some legitimate reasons to own guns. Personally, I own guns for reasons 1, 2, and 7. There is a good chance that 3 and 4 will also be added to that list depending on where I end up working.","human_ref_B":"Ok - simple case for gun ownership: I own 400 acres of land in an area where law enforcement has a 45 minute response time on average because we are an in-incorporated township in the middle of a county of 10,000+ square miles. We have livestock that are necessary to our livelihood. Losing a few dozen chickens to a coyote or a few lambs to wolves can in fact mean the difference between being fed and going to bed hungry. We have a real problem with gophers. And we have a problem with wild boar So we walk our fence line with a .45 strapped to our waist, and we go take care of our gopher problem with a bushmaster, complete with scope, and a half-dozen pre-loaded magazines. At the end of the day, we go to bed, and we earnestly pray that no one comes and robs us or worse, because we are more than 5 miles from the nearest neighbor. So yeah, we NEED guns. Sorry your little urban lifestyle hasn't introduced you to the fact that some tools have purposes beyond your experience.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16382.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"49uaqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: The right to bear arms is the most problematic, outdated and idiotic law in the USA and causes so many problems that I cannot understand how anyone could be in support of gun ownership I know the whole gun debate is a hot topic in the US right now, but as an Irish person who lives in a country with extremely strict gun laws, it cannot seem more black and white to me. Guns cause nothing but problems. All you need to do is pick one up and pull the trigger to end a life. The main argument seems to be that guns are for safety and protection. I just read a story about a woman who was in full support of gun ownership and she got shot in the back by her four year old son. So Option A: have guns lying around the house, waiting for an accident to happen. Option B: lock the gun away and defeat the purpose of having it around to protect yourself. With all these mass shootings in America, with 5 year old kids being involved in massacres, I don't understand how the laws have been changed straight away and why it's so hard for (some) americans to see how truly awful guns are. In other countries with strict gun laws, you still have maniacs who cause mass stabbings with significantly lower rates of casualties. And the phrase \" guns don't kill people, people kill people\". What even is the message here? OF COURSE guns kill people. They are chunks of metal that with one trigger pull, release a high speed bullet that penetrates the body causing death or serious injury. It is so, so easy to kill someone with a gun as opposed to a knife or baseball bat. It's a sad fact that there are maniacs out there, or people with serious mental health problems, and they should be supported, but what do people expect when it's so damn easy for them to access guns? People can talk about mental health awareness etc all they want, but the fact of the matter is, easy access to guns are a huge factor in why these mass shootings are so easy to pull off. I was in Florida a couple of years ago and saw a gun shop and the idea of it seemed so bizzarre and unsettling to me, that anyone can just walk in and buy a pistol or whatever. The fact you could be strolling around a shopping mall and some heart broken man or woman can release rounds on a machine gun while you're doing your supermarket. Sure it's really rare, but even the possibility of it happening is so disturbing. Here in Ireland the gun laws are extremely strict, there are no casual gun shops around, and they're really only used for the army and hunting. It freaks me out that in a lot of states in America, anyone can buy a gun really. I may sound passionate about my views, but I really am curious to hear the opposing side, the one that supports gun ownership. I don't know any americans personally so I'd love to hear the opposite argument. Why are relaxed gun laws better than strict gun laws? Is it the fact that it's too late to change, too many people own guns and it would cause more problems? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed on anything I've said! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d0vkiqd","c_root_id_B":"d0vb5al","created_at_utc_A":1457667214,"created_at_utc_B":1457649766,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Ok - simple case for gun ownership: I own 400 acres of land in an area where law enforcement has a 45 minute response time on average because we are an in-incorporated township in the middle of a county of 10,000+ square miles. We have livestock that are necessary to our livelihood. Losing a few dozen chickens to a coyote or a few lambs to wolves can in fact mean the difference between being fed and going to bed hungry. We have a real problem with gophers. And we have a problem with wild boar So we walk our fence line with a .45 strapped to our waist, and we go take care of our gopher problem with a bushmaster, complete with scope, and a half-dozen pre-loaded magazines. At the end of the day, we go to bed, and we earnestly pray that no one comes and robs us or worse, because we are more than 5 miles from the nearest neighbor. So yeah, we NEED guns. Sorry your little urban lifestyle hasn't introduced you to the fact that some tools have purposes beyond your experience.","human_ref_B":"Canadian here, own gun. Never had to shoot somebody","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17448.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"mqtu3p","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"cmv: if you are anti vax or anti mask because you are pro choice, then businesses should be able to deny you their services under that same set of freedoms anti vax\/maskers are arguing against health mandates > personal freedom, and i\u2019m all for that! but if businesses want to deny you services for non complicity, they should be able to do that under that same set of freedoms \u2014 which is something this population seems to disagree with trying to come up with an extreme analogy here to illustrate my point: this would be like going to some church and using a corner for your own personal unholy rituals + claiming cancellation\/persecution for non conformity when they try to kick you out. dude, we\u2019re not trying to be dicks but you can\u2019t make use our facility if you\u2019re going to actively work against our community\u2019s goal the vaccine is free; most businesses will give you a mask at the door. i feel like this is such a simple argument that i must be missing something very obvious so please, cmv","c_root_id_A":"gui8ik3","c_root_id_B":"guibnyw","created_at_utc_A":1618419262,"created_at_utc_B":1618420634,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"a business can deny you for whatever reason they want anyway, can't they?","human_ref_B":"Your post is literally what the laws are in the US. Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. No one has to serve someone else. People seem to think that a business forcing them to wear a mask to shop there are curtailing their freedom. While in the same sentence expecting that someone else curtail their own freedom and serve them against their own rules. It's very hypocritical and has a lot to do with how people view businesses and retail employees. That as a customer they MUST be served. If you want to get on a plane you can't bring nail clippers. Laws are laws and if you want on the plane you have to comply with the laws. Same thing but no one is screaming about not being able to bring nail clippers on the plane. If you want to shop at a business where you have to wear a mask. You have to wear a mask. That is how it is. Anti-Masker and Anti-Vaxxers are just simply illogical and stupid. Per the CDC there are no medical reasons someone can not wear a mask. Yet mandates say that you can be exempt due to a medical condition. So anyone who says they have a medical exemption is then free to not wear a mask. You can't ask what the condition is because it breaks HIPAA rules. So people can force a business to serve them technically. Which is wrong. Businesses are suppose to be able to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY REASON. Yet I'm forced to serve unmasked people in my grocery store because of medical exemptions that are completely bogus. The line I have for refusing service to anti maskers (who dont claim medical reasons. It's okay if its religious reasons though) is that they are free to practice their choice to not wear a mask outside the store.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1372.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"mqtu3p","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"cmv: if you are anti vax or anti mask because you are pro choice, then businesses should be able to deny you their services under that same set of freedoms anti vax\/maskers are arguing against health mandates > personal freedom, and i\u2019m all for that! but if businesses want to deny you services for non complicity, they should be able to do that under that same set of freedoms \u2014 which is something this population seems to disagree with trying to come up with an extreme analogy here to illustrate my point: this would be like going to some church and using a corner for your own personal unholy rituals + claiming cancellation\/persecution for non conformity when they try to kick you out. dude, we\u2019re not trying to be dicks but you can\u2019t make use our facility if you\u2019re going to actively work against our community\u2019s goal the vaccine is free; most businesses will give you a mask at the door. i feel like this is such a simple argument that i must be missing something very obvious so please, cmv","c_root_id_A":"gui8ik3","c_root_id_B":"gukdz3e","created_at_utc_A":1618419262,"created_at_utc_B":1618456464,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"a business can deny you for whatever reason they want anyway, can't they?","human_ref_B":"The biggest issue I have with the whole 'private businesses do what they want' is that there is nothing stopping them from selectively enacting said rules. In theory, you are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of a 'protected' class, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen with said restrictions. There is nothing stopping people from singling out random people they don't like for whatever reason and accusing them of breaking the rules. We've already seen hate crimes against Asians for being the supposed spreaders of the disease. It's the same reason why I am skeptical of vaccine passports. Plenty of progressives believe that voter identification is not just a bad idea, but is racist. The argument is that the states they live in will deliberately avoid giving them their I.D. either on time, or at all. This also applies to the vaccine passports. If it is true that minorities have a lesser take up rate (be it from willing refusal or lack of coverage in poorer areas) does that not create the same effect as the Voter I.D. would? Also, what happens in younger people have not or cannot be vaccinated due to short supply? I am not outright opposed to private companies utilising anti-mask or anti-vax bans, but I think we should be very careful when giving companies these kinds of powers over what are sometimes incredibly subtle or difficult to prove thing. Say someone was a racist and hated black people. Nothing stopping them 'taking' their mask from them, taking a video of that person angry, cutting out important things, and posting it to a subreddit making fun of anti-maskers and supporting their use of powers. Under normal circumstances, people might see the race and ask questions as to why such a massive response was taken (race always come up, for better or worse) but the perfect excuse is that they were breaking 'the rules'. It's a perfect cop-out. No one will oppose it. People like to argue that 'what about clothes, they make them wear that, right?'. It isn't the same. You cannot 'fake' that kind of problem, unless you intend to fully strip someone there and then. I may not need proof to boot someone out of my store if I accuse them of being anti-vaccine. They might not have their I.D., they may have I.D. but it looks fake, they might be unlucky enough to lose it. If someone held a prejudice against Asians, they might deliberately only focus their efforts on ensuring that they had the correct stuff with them, not dissimilar to how many accuse police of being racist with stop and search. I do not necessarily think businesses wanting to enact certain restrictions are bad, but I think businesses and governments need to be really careful when rolling out this kind of restriction. Often, these restrictions are vague, falsifiable and can lead to serious problems down the line when companies abuse it to be prejudiced. There are still plenty of places in the world where gay people cannot donate aids because of the fear of HIV. On another note, private businesses are saying that they may enact mandates, but for lack of a better word, most are virtue signalling. All businesses are struggling, and the moment things open up, its back to business as usual. They will want as many customers as possible, and 'safety' will likely not be their concern anymore.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":37202.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"mqtu3p","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"cmv: if you are anti vax or anti mask because you are pro choice, then businesses should be able to deny you their services under that same set of freedoms anti vax\/maskers are arguing against health mandates > personal freedom, and i\u2019m all for that! but if businesses want to deny you services for non complicity, they should be able to do that under that same set of freedoms \u2014 which is something this population seems to disagree with trying to come up with an extreme analogy here to illustrate my point: this would be like going to some church and using a corner for your own personal unholy rituals + claiming cancellation\/persecution for non conformity when they try to kick you out. dude, we\u2019re not trying to be dicks but you can\u2019t make use our facility if you\u2019re going to actively work against our community\u2019s goal the vaccine is free; most businesses will give you a mask at the door. i feel like this is such a simple argument that i must be missing something very obvious so please, cmv","c_root_id_A":"guj85fd","c_root_id_B":"gukdz3e","created_at_utc_A":1618434870,"created_at_utc_B":1618456464,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I agree with your premise to a point, as there are countless places with the no shirt, no shoes, no service sign already. However I think that denying someone service because they are of a certain group is dangerous territory to tread. It would open up the country to a whole new round of prejudices against a group of people. And sure, getting the vaccine or wearing a mask sounds like a simple choice for most, but what about the people that for health or religious reasons can\u2019t wear a mask or get the vaccine? Would you deny someone that has no problem with the vaccine but can\u2019t get it because they\u2019re allergic to a certain compound in it?","human_ref_B":"The biggest issue I have with the whole 'private businesses do what they want' is that there is nothing stopping them from selectively enacting said rules. In theory, you are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of a 'protected' class, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen with said restrictions. There is nothing stopping people from singling out random people they don't like for whatever reason and accusing them of breaking the rules. We've already seen hate crimes against Asians for being the supposed spreaders of the disease. It's the same reason why I am skeptical of vaccine passports. Plenty of progressives believe that voter identification is not just a bad idea, but is racist. The argument is that the states they live in will deliberately avoid giving them their I.D. either on time, or at all. This also applies to the vaccine passports. If it is true that minorities have a lesser take up rate (be it from willing refusal or lack of coverage in poorer areas) does that not create the same effect as the Voter I.D. would? Also, what happens in younger people have not or cannot be vaccinated due to short supply? I am not outright opposed to private companies utilising anti-mask or anti-vax bans, but I think we should be very careful when giving companies these kinds of powers over what are sometimes incredibly subtle or difficult to prove thing. Say someone was a racist and hated black people. Nothing stopping them 'taking' their mask from them, taking a video of that person angry, cutting out important things, and posting it to a subreddit making fun of anti-maskers and supporting their use of powers. Under normal circumstances, people might see the race and ask questions as to why such a massive response was taken (race always come up, for better or worse) but the perfect excuse is that they were breaking 'the rules'. It's a perfect cop-out. No one will oppose it. People like to argue that 'what about clothes, they make them wear that, right?'. It isn't the same. You cannot 'fake' that kind of problem, unless you intend to fully strip someone there and then. I may not need proof to boot someone out of my store if I accuse them of being anti-vaccine. They might not have their I.D., they may have I.D. but it looks fake, they might be unlucky enough to lose it. If someone held a prejudice against Asians, they might deliberately only focus their efforts on ensuring that they had the correct stuff with them, not dissimilar to how many accuse police of being racist with stop and search. I do not necessarily think businesses wanting to enact certain restrictions are bad, but I think businesses and governments need to be really careful when rolling out this kind of restriction. Often, these restrictions are vague, falsifiable and can lead to serious problems down the line when companies abuse it to be prejudiced. There are still plenty of places in the world where gay people cannot donate aids because of the fear of HIV. On another note, private businesses are saying that they may enact mandates, but for lack of a better word, most are virtue signalling. All businesses are struggling, and the moment things open up, its back to business as usual. They will want as many customers as possible, and 'safety' will likely not be their concern anymore.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21594.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"6m7xtl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"Change my view thatWe would be better off as a society not pursuing AI and Automation any further. We are setting ourselves up for disaster. Also, Basic Income is not a good enough solution. Hey everyone. This is my first post here so I\u2019m a bit nervous. It\u2019s pretty long but I tried to keep it organized. Below are my views so far about automation, artificial intelligence and basic income, and where I think it will ultimately lead. BI is included because it\u2019s always the mentioned solution for the flaws with the first two. I\u2019ve been in a random debate or two about this topic in the past but was left with lots of unanswered questions. I\u2019m hoping someone can point out some new perspective and poke some holes in my negative take. Okay, here\u2019s a list of concerns. ** Automation and Artificial Intelligence.** 1. Mass unemployment. It will start with retail and delivery\/driver positions, replacing humans with kiosks and drivers with automated cars\/drones. Eventually we'll have robots performing more complex jobs such as waiters, chefs, plumbing, carpentry, etc. AI will continue to get smarter at exponential rates, it will build more complex robots than we ever could, and it will take over engineering, translators, accountants, doctors, basically every job. 2. I think the *only* jobs that will remain available will be creative\/entertainment fields such as music, film, art, sports, etc. 3. Companies like Amazon are actively working to make as much money as possible with as few workers as possible. I get it, that\u2019s capitalism. But this is shortsighted, because eventually even the CEOs, IT and engineers of these pioneering companies will be unemployed when the AI becomes smart enough to develop *itself* and even start its *own* companies. 4. By pursuing this path, we are voluntarily working towards making ourselves inferior. I\u2019m not gonna get into Terminator\/Matrix stuff here. But we\u2019re creating a technology that is \u201cintelligent\u201d and based on the human brain (but smarter). How can we indefinitely control an intelligent being who gains nothing by working for us? 5. I\u2019ve seen the idea that we\u2019ve already had major technological leaps that put lots of people out of work, but we always bounce back and find a way. But we have never had a form of technology which is more intelligent than us and built to be self-improving. --------------------------------- Now for **Basic Income.** To be clear, I love the idea of BI\u2026 In a society where there are jobs available. But for that to be the *only* source of income seems really dangerous. 1. Who's providing the BI? Where is this money coming from? It won't be coming from taxes, because basically no one will be paying taxes, because pretty much everyone's going to be unemployed. 2. And how much is each person going to get? How is this determined? How does it stay fair and equal? 3.How are very capitalist societies going to adjust to something so polar opposite from what they\u2019re used to that it makes communism seem like Black Friday in comparison? 4. Ok, so let's say I get X amount per month. What if I need to fix my car? What if I like traveling? How does \u201cfun\u201d or basically anything outside of a strict set income figure into this? Right now even if I can\u2019t afford something I want, the *possibility* of working more hours still exists. How do I get extra money? ---------------------- Woo! If you made it this far, thank you for being so patient with my rambling. I\u2019ll be checking in a few times through the day. Thanks for reading and responding, looking forward to an interesting discussion! ____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djzml4t","c_root_id_B":"djzn52h","created_at_utc_A":1499617455,"created_at_utc_B":1499618204,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"> By pursuing this path, we are voluntarily working towards making ourselves inferior. I\u2019m not gonna get into Terminator\/Matrix stuff here. But we\u2019re creating a technology that is \u201cintelligent\u201d and based on the human brain (but smarter). How can we indefinitely control an intelligent being who gains nothing by working for us? If we are speculating about General Artificial Intelligence, then this is the **ONLY** meaningful question in your post. Talking about what effect superintelligent beings on a positive feedback loop of self-improvement would have on the job market, is missing the point. First of all, the trailblazers of general AI development have very little to do with the fields of science that produce kiosk terminals, factory robots, and utility software, that is causing most of the job market shifts. Forbidding Apple from selling a new gadget that speeds up office work, and cuts down the number of necessary office employees, won't stop the progress in programming that might eventually lead to inventing algorithms that can design better algorithms. Second of all, you are actually **underestimating** the scope of this change. Currently, we have a plethora of scientific theories, and engineering concepts, that we are quite confident about making some sense on paper, we just need the computing capacity to eventually build them: Space mining, Von Neumann machines, Dyson spheres, brain uploading, and so on. Making a superintelligent being that can create even more superintelligent beings, and design machines that can produce more machines, would essentially mean **creating God**. A being that could in short order extract and transform most matter in the solar system to be used for it's purposes, while also having enough fine control over matter to fix everything that could ever go wrong with human bodies. You are right, we can't \"control\" such a being. At best, we can hope that it was programmed right in the first place, so it will use it's power to end scarcity, create immortality, and turn our lives into utopia. At worst, it will recycle all of our bodies for spare atoms. However, it is unlikely that it would cause unemployment or poverty.. One way or another, it would be the Singularity event, the end of history. However, if such a being is possible at all, then *it will be created* one way or another. There is no version of the future where all nations, all corporations, all individuals, and all academic circles will cease the advancement of AI programming. Trying to appeal to responsible actors not to create it, will just lead to someone more irresponsible being the first to create it.","human_ref_B":"Others are better suited to tackle the issues you have with UBI. However, your idea of AI seems to be really out of touch with what we actually have, and as someone who is planning to go for a PhD in Computer Science, I feel qualified to debunk what you put forward. First, I don't know why you distinguish between engineering and film in this context. If an AI could demonstrate the creative thought required to think of the social factors involving the creation of a bridge, the requirements of a budget, safety standards, local environmental conditions, then I daresay they could make a film as well. AI is already able to make art as it is much simpler. However, the fear itself is unjustified. Currently, the most developed part of the field of AI is machine learning, which is great. However, even as developed as it is, on super computers, machine learning is still relegated to relatively simple tasks. Image recognition has an error rate of at least around 3.5% and has been stalled at that rate for over a year. Natural language processing is still young as well. Computers generally just pick out the important words in your sentence and focus on those as the main meaning. If you give computer complex sentences, they can't handle them. These are tasks that are trivial for humans. Complex thoughts aren't even the realm of possibility. AI won't increase at an exponential rate without an exponential increase in AI research, which doesn't appear likely. The last boom was created due to the advent of deep learning, which was itself not new, but made an impact due to the higher availability of data which allowed for greater sample sizes. Moore's law is ending, so AI capability likely isn't going to increase exponentially due to an exponential increase in computational power either. That being said, increase in computational power will inherently imply an increase in AI capability. Quantum computing could be a big deal for AI (though it is at least decades away). Stopping quantum computing would necessitate a stop in a ton of research in both physics and computing. Even fields of computing that don't seem related (theoretical computer science, programming languages) can still produce research that would aid quantum computing\/AI indirectly. Even discarding the practicality of stopping research in both the public and private sphere, this wouldn't be a good idea. Considering the scope and importance of the two fields, putting a stop to this theoretical boon to AI development would necessitate nearly halting research in general. This should be something you are opposed to given that you said: > By pursuing this path, we are voluntarily working towards making ourselves inferior. I\u2019m not gonna get into Terminator\/Matrix stuff here. But we\u2019re creating a technology that is \u201cintelligent\u201d and based on the human brain (but smarter). If we halt research, that also means to stop using our brain and stagnate as a society.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":749.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"6m7xtl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"Change my view thatWe would be better off as a society not pursuing AI and Automation any further. We are setting ourselves up for disaster. Also, Basic Income is not a good enough solution. Hey everyone. This is my first post here so I\u2019m a bit nervous. It\u2019s pretty long but I tried to keep it organized. Below are my views so far about automation, artificial intelligence and basic income, and where I think it will ultimately lead. BI is included because it\u2019s always the mentioned solution for the flaws with the first two. I\u2019ve been in a random debate or two about this topic in the past but was left with lots of unanswered questions. I\u2019m hoping someone can point out some new perspective and poke some holes in my negative take. Okay, here\u2019s a list of concerns. ** Automation and Artificial Intelligence.** 1. Mass unemployment. It will start with retail and delivery\/driver positions, replacing humans with kiosks and drivers with automated cars\/drones. Eventually we'll have robots performing more complex jobs such as waiters, chefs, plumbing, carpentry, etc. AI will continue to get smarter at exponential rates, it will build more complex robots than we ever could, and it will take over engineering, translators, accountants, doctors, basically every job. 2. I think the *only* jobs that will remain available will be creative\/entertainment fields such as music, film, art, sports, etc. 3. Companies like Amazon are actively working to make as much money as possible with as few workers as possible. I get it, that\u2019s capitalism. But this is shortsighted, because eventually even the CEOs, IT and engineers of these pioneering companies will be unemployed when the AI becomes smart enough to develop *itself* and even start its *own* companies. 4. By pursuing this path, we are voluntarily working towards making ourselves inferior. I\u2019m not gonna get into Terminator\/Matrix stuff here. But we\u2019re creating a technology that is \u201cintelligent\u201d and based on the human brain (but smarter). How can we indefinitely control an intelligent being who gains nothing by working for us? 5. I\u2019ve seen the idea that we\u2019ve already had major technological leaps that put lots of people out of work, but we always bounce back and find a way. But we have never had a form of technology which is more intelligent than us and built to be self-improving. --------------------------------- Now for **Basic Income.** To be clear, I love the idea of BI\u2026 In a society where there are jobs available. But for that to be the *only* source of income seems really dangerous. 1. Who's providing the BI? Where is this money coming from? It won't be coming from taxes, because basically no one will be paying taxes, because pretty much everyone's going to be unemployed. 2. And how much is each person going to get? How is this determined? How does it stay fair and equal? 3.How are very capitalist societies going to adjust to something so polar opposite from what they\u2019re used to that it makes communism seem like Black Friday in comparison? 4. Ok, so let's say I get X amount per month. What if I need to fix my car? What if I like traveling? How does \u201cfun\u201d or basically anything outside of a strict set income figure into this? Right now even if I can\u2019t afford something I want, the *possibility* of working more hours still exists. How do I get extra money? ---------------------- Woo! If you made it this far, thank you for being so patient with my rambling. I\u2019ll be checking in a few times through the day. Thanks for reading and responding, looking forward to an interesting discussion! ____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"djzqnca","c_root_id_B":"djzml4t","created_at_utc_A":1499622751,"created_at_utc_B":1499617455,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm not going to address basic income because that's a whole other can of worms, but your argument for stopping automation is nearly identical to those of the Luddites in the 1820s. They were concerned about long term technological unemployment and, they fail to account for compensation effects. In fact, a lot of new technology brings jobs. While we no longer have milk men, elevator operators, switchboard operators, ice cutters, and lamplighters. But we also have new jobs like computer programmers, environmental engineers, data scientists, genetic researchers, zumba instructors, app developers. Most people wouldn't have even imagined those jobs 50 years ago. The fear of losing a job is understandable when we don't know what the future holds, but that is part of the process when technology advances.","human_ref_B":"> By pursuing this path, we are voluntarily working towards making ourselves inferior. I\u2019m not gonna get into Terminator\/Matrix stuff here. But we\u2019re creating a technology that is \u201cintelligent\u201d and based on the human brain (but smarter). How can we indefinitely control an intelligent being who gains nothing by working for us? If we are speculating about General Artificial Intelligence, then this is the **ONLY** meaningful question in your post. Talking about what effect superintelligent beings on a positive feedback loop of self-improvement would have on the job market, is missing the point. First of all, the trailblazers of general AI development have very little to do with the fields of science that produce kiosk terminals, factory robots, and utility software, that is causing most of the job market shifts. Forbidding Apple from selling a new gadget that speeds up office work, and cuts down the number of necessary office employees, won't stop the progress in programming that might eventually lead to inventing algorithms that can design better algorithms. Second of all, you are actually **underestimating** the scope of this change. Currently, we have a plethora of scientific theories, and engineering concepts, that we are quite confident about making some sense on paper, we just need the computing capacity to eventually build them: Space mining, Von Neumann machines, Dyson spheres, brain uploading, and so on. Making a superintelligent being that can create even more superintelligent beings, and design machines that can produce more machines, would essentially mean **creating God**. A being that could in short order extract and transform most matter in the solar system to be used for it's purposes, while also having enough fine control over matter to fix everything that could ever go wrong with human bodies. You are right, we can't \"control\" such a being. At best, we can hope that it was programmed right in the first place, so it will use it's power to end scarcity, create immortality, and turn our lives into utopia. At worst, it will recycle all of our bodies for spare atoms. However, it is unlikely that it would cause unemployment or poverty.. One way or another, it would be the Singularity event, the end of history. However, if such a being is possible at all, then *it will be created* one way or another. There is no version of the future where all nations, all corporations, all individuals, and all academic circles will cease the advancement of AI programming. Trying to appeal to responsible actors not to create it, will just lead to someone more irresponsible being the first to create it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5296.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"zci2wi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: School homework is a terrible idea. What is the purpose to children having to do school stuff when they are off school? What is the meaning with - instead of doing the work during classes - having to do it in your spare time? I cant find any good reason at all for forced homework for children. Imagine the same thing for adults. Your boss tells you at the end of the day: \"Hey, dont forget to do this work while youre free from work!\" (I know this is the case for some people but it is not the standard). So, I say, maybe make a school day a little bit longer then, and let kids be free when they are free. English is not my first language. Cheers","c_root_id_A":"iywm6r2","c_root_id_B":"iywll3m","created_at_utc_A":1670180843,"created_at_utc_B":1670180622,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> So, I say, maybe make a school day a little bit longer then, and let kids be free when they are free. If the choices are employ the school staff for an extra just for them to watch the students work independently or send kids home to do it on their own time, seems like homework makes an lot of sense. \\* Speaking of which, one of the advantages of a flexible home schedule is you don't really have to worry about students working at different paces if their doing it in their own time. I think one challenge you're going to run into is are your criticisms of homework actually distinct from broader \"school is bad\" arguments? Because if you think school is poorly run in general, work at home vs work in time probably isn't actually going to matter to your view at all.","human_ref_B":"> What is the purpose to children having to do school stuff when they are off school? What is the meaning with - instead of doing the work during classes - having to do it in your spare time? Because schools are supposed to be places where you get trained to be an adult. Regardless of whether any given school succeeds in that goal, and being an adult does not end once the school\/work day ends. As an adult (to be successful) you've got responsibilities outside of your work that requires a skills set and aptitude for responsibility. Homework serves dual purpose, to cultivate a habit of responsibility and provide practice for the work being done in session. To give you an idea, I've got to keep up with what's called \"continuing education\" certifications. So I've got to have a platform of knowledge that I continually practice and get tested on in order to continue my career. Homework is the lower level of doing exactly that > Imagine the same thing for adults. It is the same for adults. Instead of being told by your boss you need to do a task, homework prepares you to recognize when you need to do this work for yourself. People tend to excel at some subjects and have difficulty in others. I was great at math so I didn't see a need for math homework. I sucked at chemistry so homework was essential for my success. Homework allows you to learn what topics you'd need to put extra work in as an adult and what areas you're naturally strong in and probably can take it easy with. > let kids be free when they are free. They are free so do whatever they want just like adults. If you don't do your homework and do bad in class it's essentially the same for adults who don't continue their education. They will fail.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":221.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"zci2wi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: School homework is a terrible idea. What is the purpose to children having to do school stuff when they are off school? What is the meaning with - instead of doing the work during classes - having to do it in your spare time? I cant find any good reason at all for forced homework for children. Imagine the same thing for adults. Your boss tells you at the end of the day: \"Hey, dont forget to do this work while youre free from work!\" (I know this is the case for some people but it is not the standard). So, I say, maybe make a school day a little bit longer then, and let kids be free when they are free. English is not my first language. Cheers","c_root_id_A":"iywm6r2","c_root_id_B":"iywlguh","created_at_utc_A":1670180843,"created_at_utc_B":1670180578,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> So, I say, maybe make a school day a little bit longer then, and let kids be free when they are free. If the choices are employ the school staff for an extra just for them to watch the students work independently or send kids home to do it on their own time, seems like homework makes an lot of sense. \\* Speaking of which, one of the advantages of a flexible home schedule is you don't really have to worry about students working at different paces if their doing it in their own time. I think one challenge you're going to run into is are your criticisms of homework actually distinct from broader \"school is bad\" arguments? Because if you think school is poorly run in general, work at home vs work in time probably isn't actually going to matter to your view at all.","human_ref_B":">I cant find any good reason at all for forced homework for children. Aside from that a classroom can have 30 kids and one teacher who doesn't have the time to check everyone grasps everything during class? Practice, testing understanding without oversight, so they can know if there are questions they should ask, skill mastery and retention. Same as why you practice an instrument between lessons.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":265.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"zci2wi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: School homework is a terrible idea. What is the purpose to children having to do school stuff when they are off school? What is the meaning with - instead of doing the work during classes - having to do it in your spare time? I cant find any good reason at all for forced homework for children. Imagine the same thing for adults. Your boss tells you at the end of the day: \"Hey, dont forget to do this work while youre free from work!\" (I know this is the case for some people but it is not the standard). So, I say, maybe make a school day a little bit longer then, and let kids be free when they are free. English is not my first language. Cheers","c_root_id_A":"iywll3m","c_root_id_B":"iywndjd","created_at_utc_A":1670180622,"created_at_utc_B":1670181300,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> What is the purpose to children having to do school stuff when they are off school? What is the meaning with - instead of doing the work during classes - having to do it in your spare time? Because schools are supposed to be places where you get trained to be an adult. Regardless of whether any given school succeeds in that goal, and being an adult does not end once the school\/work day ends. As an adult (to be successful) you've got responsibilities outside of your work that requires a skills set and aptitude for responsibility. Homework serves dual purpose, to cultivate a habit of responsibility and provide practice for the work being done in session. To give you an idea, I've got to keep up with what's called \"continuing education\" certifications. So I've got to have a platform of knowledge that I continually practice and get tested on in order to continue my career. Homework is the lower level of doing exactly that > Imagine the same thing for adults. It is the same for adults. Instead of being told by your boss you need to do a task, homework prepares you to recognize when you need to do this work for yourself. People tend to excel at some subjects and have difficulty in others. I was great at math so I didn't see a need for math homework. I sucked at chemistry so homework was essential for my success. Homework allows you to learn what topics you'd need to put extra work in as an adult and what areas you're naturally strong in and probably can take it easy with. > let kids be free when they are free. They are free so do whatever they want just like adults. If you don't do your homework and do bad in class it's essentially the same for adults who don't continue their education. They will fail.","human_ref_B":"Here is a list of a couple of reasons I think homework can be a good idea, it's up to you to decide if the negatives outweigh the positives. 1. It helps teach children responsibility outside of school. Adults have responsibilities outside of work, they have to do household tasks, financial related issues, book appointments etc, by getting kids to do homework it prepares them for adult life where there are tasks that need to be completed outside of work hours. 2. It helps teachers figure out how much a student understands a subject, students may seem to understand a subject in class but only because they have a teacher or classmates on hand, but struggle to solve independently, homework can help identify areas the student may need extra support in. 3. It teaches students how to stay organised, when in school the day and schedule is planned out for them, homework helps teach students how to organise their own time. 4. Repeating skills learnt helps them to retain what they learned in class, the time given in class may not be enough to learn something, homework allows them to revise what they learned in class and helps retain what they learned.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":678.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"zci2wi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: School homework is a terrible idea. What is the purpose to children having to do school stuff when they are off school? What is the meaning with - instead of doing the work during classes - having to do it in your spare time? I cant find any good reason at all for forced homework for children. Imagine the same thing for adults. Your boss tells you at the end of the day: \"Hey, dont forget to do this work while youre free from work!\" (I know this is the case for some people but it is not the standard). So, I say, maybe make a school day a little bit longer then, and let kids be free when they are free. English is not my first language. Cheers","c_root_id_A":"iywlguh","c_root_id_B":"iywll3m","created_at_utc_A":1670180578,"created_at_utc_B":1670180622,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">I cant find any good reason at all for forced homework for children. Aside from that a classroom can have 30 kids and one teacher who doesn't have the time to check everyone grasps everything during class? Practice, testing understanding without oversight, so they can know if there are questions they should ask, skill mastery and retention. Same as why you practice an instrument between lessons.","human_ref_B":"> What is the purpose to children having to do school stuff when they are off school? What is the meaning with - instead of doing the work during classes - having to do it in your spare time? Because schools are supposed to be places where you get trained to be an adult. Regardless of whether any given school succeeds in that goal, and being an adult does not end once the school\/work day ends. As an adult (to be successful) you've got responsibilities outside of your work that requires a skills set and aptitude for responsibility. Homework serves dual purpose, to cultivate a habit of responsibility and provide practice for the work being done in session. To give you an idea, I've got to keep up with what's called \"continuing education\" certifications. So I've got to have a platform of knowledge that I continually practice and get tested on in order to continue my career. Homework is the lower level of doing exactly that > Imagine the same thing for adults. It is the same for adults. Instead of being told by your boss you need to do a task, homework prepares you to recognize when you need to do this work for yourself. People tend to excel at some subjects and have difficulty in others. I was great at math so I didn't see a need for math homework. I sucked at chemistry so homework was essential for my success. Homework allows you to learn what topics you'd need to put extra work in as an adult and what areas you're naturally strong in and probably can take it easy with. > let kids be free when they are free. They are free so do whatever they want just like adults. If you don't do your homework and do bad in class it's essentially the same for adults who don't continue their education. They will fail.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":44.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"zci2wi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: School homework is a terrible idea. What is the purpose to children having to do school stuff when they are off school? What is the meaning with - instead of doing the work during classes - having to do it in your spare time? I cant find any good reason at all for forced homework for children. Imagine the same thing for adults. Your boss tells you at the end of the day: \"Hey, dont forget to do this work while youre free from work!\" (I know this is the case for some people but it is not the standard). So, I say, maybe make a school day a little bit longer then, and let kids be free when they are free. English is not my first language. Cheers","c_root_id_A":"iywndjd","c_root_id_B":"iywlguh","created_at_utc_A":1670181300,"created_at_utc_B":1670180578,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Here is a list of a couple of reasons I think homework can be a good idea, it's up to you to decide if the negatives outweigh the positives. 1. It helps teach children responsibility outside of school. Adults have responsibilities outside of work, they have to do household tasks, financial related issues, book appointments etc, by getting kids to do homework it prepares them for adult life where there are tasks that need to be completed outside of work hours. 2. It helps teachers figure out how much a student understands a subject, students may seem to understand a subject in class but only because they have a teacher or classmates on hand, but struggle to solve independently, homework can help identify areas the student may need extra support in. 3. It teaches students how to stay organised, when in school the day and schedule is planned out for them, homework helps teach students how to organise their own time. 4. Repeating skills learnt helps them to retain what they learned in class, the time given in class may not be enough to learn something, homework allows them to revise what they learned in class and helps retain what they learned.","human_ref_B":">I cant find any good reason at all for forced homework for children. Aside from that a classroom can have 30 kids and one teacher who doesn't have the time to check everyone grasps everything during class? Practice, testing understanding without oversight, so they can know if there are questions they should ask, skill mastery and retention. Same as why you practice an instrument between lessons.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":722.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"zci2wi","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: School homework is a terrible idea. What is the purpose to children having to do school stuff when they are off school? What is the meaning with - instead of doing the work during classes - having to do it in your spare time? I cant find any good reason at all for forced homework for children. Imagine the same thing for adults. Your boss tells you at the end of the day: \"Hey, dont forget to do this work while youre free from work!\" (I know this is the case for some people but it is not the standard). So, I say, maybe make a school day a little bit longer then, and let kids be free when they are free. English is not my first language. Cheers","c_root_id_A":"iywmb5e","c_root_id_B":"iywndjd","created_at_utc_A":1670180889,"created_at_utc_B":1670181300,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This was posted about an hour ago","human_ref_B":"Here is a list of a couple of reasons I think homework can be a good idea, it's up to you to decide if the negatives outweigh the positives. 1. It helps teach children responsibility outside of school. Adults have responsibilities outside of work, they have to do household tasks, financial related issues, book appointments etc, by getting kids to do homework it prepares them for adult life where there are tasks that need to be completed outside of work hours. 2. It helps teachers figure out how much a student understands a subject, students may seem to understand a subject in class but only because they have a teacher or classmates on hand, but struggle to solve independently, homework can help identify areas the student may need extra support in. 3. It teaches students how to stay organised, when in school the day and schedule is planned out for them, homework helps teach students how to organise their own time. 4. Repeating skills learnt helps them to retain what they learned in class, the time given in class may not be enough to learn something, homework allows them to revise what they learned in class and helps retain what they learned.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":411.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"6bv0pv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy Dear all, I have been debating my view with friends for sometime. My view is that children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy, be it Physiological, Psychological or Pharmaceutical. The reason I feel this way; is that up to and including adolescence, a person's identity is still being formed, and for a child and their family to decide that they need to change their identity and body in such a radical and possibly irreversible way is I think unethical. I feel that too often in modern society parents give into the pressure and guilt of a child who feels they are born into the wrong gender. I agree that a child's health and happiness is paramount, but there has be a compromise between supporting the child and knowing what's best for them. I have no issue with adults wanting to change their identity, but feel it's not appropriate for children. I would be interested in hearing from anyone with professional experience or would happily accept the overall consensus, whether I am right or wrong to view this issue the way I do. Either feel way free to CHANGE MY VIEW JP","c_root_id_A":"dhpsr6q","c_root_id_B":"dhpqf27","created_at_utc_A":1495105786,"created_at_utc_B":1495099396,"score_A":59,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"Children don't get gender reassignment surgery. No psychologist or doctor would recommend that. Neither do they recommend a child to cut\/grow out their hair and live as as the opposite sex, instead they get recommended to experiment with it at home (and not in public as not to condition the child or to make it difficult to go back). Professionals in this field are well aware this is most often a phase and the process to weed out those who really have gender dysphoria is very long. The first thing they get as treatment is therapy to see why they don't feel comfortable as their own gender. Afterwards they might get hormone blockers to delay puberty so they can get a little more time decide if they want surgery. You CMV isn't really challenging the status quo. Even adults have to go through a very lengthy process to get surgery.","human_ref_B":">change their identity and body in such a radical and possibly irreversible way is I think unethical. >be it Physiological, Psychological or Pharmaceutical. It isn't so black and white. For example, puberty denial drugs can be used to ensure the transition can be performed more easily later without causing any permanent change (take drugs away, and puberty starts just as it was). And seriously, you want to deny possibly transgender individuals psychological help?? With the trans suicide rate being what it is, this seems *extremely* unwise. And finally, this is not a *decision* a child makes. Transgender, or rather gender dysphoria, is a *diagnosis*, which can be performed adequately at a young age by a professional.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6390.0,"score_ratio":1.2040816327} {"post_id":"6bv0pv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy Dear all, I have been debating my view with friends for sometime. My view is that children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy, be it Physiological, Psychological or Pharmaceutical. The reason I feel this way; is that up to and including adolescence, a person's identity is still being formed, and for a child and their family to decide that they need to change their identity and body in such a radical and possibly irreversible way is I think unethical. I feel that too often in modern society parents give into the pressure and guilt of a child who feels they are born into the wrong gender. I agree that a child's health and happiness is paramount, but there has be a compromise between supporting the child and knowing what's best for them. I have no issue with adults wanting to change their identity, but feel it's not appropriate for children. I would be interested in hearing from anyone with professional experience or would happily accept the overall consensus, whether I am right or wrong to view this issue the way I do. Either feel way free to CHANGE MY VIEW JP","c_root_id_A":"dhpsr6q","c_root_id_B":"dhpqyo0","created_at_utc_A":1495105786,"created_at_utc_B":1495101019,"score_A":59,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Children don't get gender reassignment surgery. No psychologist or doctor would recommend that. Neither do they recommend a child to cut\/grow out their hair and live as as the opposite sex, instead they get recommended to experiment with it at home (and not in public as not to condition the child or to make it difficult to go back). Professionals in this field are well aware this is most often a phase and the process to weed out those who really have gender dysphoria is very long. The first thing they get as treatment is therapy to see why they don't feel comfortable as their own gender. Afterwards they might get hormone blockers to delay puberty so they can get a little more time decide if they want surgery. You CMV isn't really challenging the status quo. Even adults have to go through a very lengthy process to get surgery.","human_ref_B":"> My view is that children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy, be it Physiological, Psychological or Pharmaceutical. You are making an extremely broad statement here. Gender dysphoria frequently leads to severe depression - should children with gender-related depression not be given access to psychological treatment?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4767.0,"score_ratio":4.2142857143} {"post_id":"6bv0pv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy Dear all, I have been debating my view with friends for sometime. My view is that children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy, be it Physiological, Psychological or Pharmaceutical. The reason I feel this way; is that up to and including adolescence, a person's identity is still being formed, and for a child and their family to decide that they need to change their identity and body in such a radical and possibly irreversible way is I think unethical. I feel that too often in modern society parents give into the pressure and guilt of a child who feels they are born into the wrong gender. I agree that a child's health and happiness is paramount, but there has be a compromise between supporting the child and knowing what's best for them. I have no issue with adults wanting to change their identity, but feel it's not appropriate for children. I would be interested in hearing from anyone with professional experience or would happily accept the overall consensus, whether I am right or wrong to view this issue the way I do. Either feel way free to CHANGE MY VIEW JP","c_root_id_A":"dhq1su9","c_root_id_B":"dhq0njj","created_at_utc_A":1495119223,"created_at_utc_B":1495117929,"score_A":12,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"First let's establish that for some children, gender dysphoria is a serious medical disorder. You have young kids with so much anxiety about gender dysphoria that they can socially withdraw from other children and become depressed and suicidal. When I was about 6 or 7 and realized my wish to change my body could never magically come true, I became bitter inside and stopped wanting to participate in childhood activities and entered a pattern of suffering and escapism. Despite high early test scores my grades plummeted. And the saddest part to me is how much time I spent plotting to kill myself, secretly (because I couldn't tell anyone about my feelings) while lying awake all night (I had insomnia from the anxiety). I settled on running with scissors and falling and plunging them into my heart, so that people could believe it was an accident, in case you want to know how a 1st grader plots their own death. See, I had the thoughts of gender dysphoria since I was 3 or 4 years old --- basically back to my earliest memories. When I was really young I was constantly daydreaming that I would wake up one day in the right body. I did this partly because the fantasies were enjoyable, but also because at that age I thought if I wished hard enough it could come true. So in just a few years, by the time period of the above paragraph, I had already spent 1000s of hours actively and consistently wanting to change my sex. You are worried about children changing their sex on a whim, and changing their minds later on. But you can see in my case it was not a whim, I had already given it far more thought than a lot of adults give to their major life decisions. Now the key is to understand: when something makes you suffer constantly, several times a day, every day for years, then you tend to think a lot about it. You think it through over and over, analyzing it from every angle, because you are desperate for relief. Children who face extreme hardship, such as growing up in a warzone, are well known to mature more quickly. That's similar to what being trans did to me, it ended my childhood bubble early and led to me thinking more like an adult at a young age. Since no one could know about my gender dysphoria, they just thought I was mature for my age and that's why I thought children were stupid and preferred the company of adults. Inside I was just bitter and I longed to experience the ``right'' childhood without gender dysphoria. So far I have conveyed the following points: 1. Children with gender dysphoria can actively suffer a lot. This is not like wanting some toy and your parents don't buy it for you, it's more like the first thing you think of every morning and the last thing you think of every night, and every time you think of it feels like being stabbed in the heart. 2. Children who suffer greatly are noted to, in general, mature more quickly because the bubble of imagination and naive trust that contributes to the modern childhood experience breaks at a certain point. Furthermore, people who suffer an ongoing burden will tend to think a lot about that burden, and for trans children this can add up to 1000s of hours spent thinking about their predicament by the time they are just starting school. 3. Finally, there are the therapists who have studied trans children. By talking to these children they know that stories like mine are not untypical, and they also see even more severe cases than I was. They realized through studying a lot of trans kids over the years, that these severe cases were not asking to transition on some kind of whim, rather it was a grave issue that the child has given an immense amount of thought to. When you talk to children who articulate so clearly and consistently about what they want, and how they are suffering, over frequent therapy visits over a period of several years, it becomes clear that this is not some childhood phase or passing interest that they will regret when they are older. It's only at this point that the therapist would support allowing the child to socially transition at home. One last thing: in any type of gender therapy the drive to transition always comes from the patient. Even for adults, a therapist won't say \"I think you should transition\", rather they are just listeners.","human_ref_B":"I recommend this fact sheet by the APA. It gives some criteria that doctors can use to determine, whether a child is likely transgender. Trans children need to show \"a **pervasive, consistent, persistent and insistent** sense of being the other gender, and some degree of gender dysphoria\" (i.e., discomfort related to their bodies not matching their internal sense of gender). Some quotes from the document that support the view that (at least non-surgical) treatment is strongly advised: > * Children usually have a sense of their gender identity between age 2 to 5 > * Early intervention may improve outcomes for gender diverse and transgender children who are experiencing emotional distress. > * Children who experience affirming and supportive responses to their gender identity are more likely to have improved mental health outcomes. > * Individualized treatment plans based on the child\u2019s specific situation and needs should be created for each case. > * Psychologists\u2019 work with family can include assisting them to seek support and move toward acceptance, encouraging the child\u2019s gender exploration and expression, speaking with the child about gender > * The earliest a child should be referred for medical treatment of gender dysphoria is just before the onset of puberty > * Puberty blocking medication can be used to put a temporary halt on puberty and not only allow a child to stop an unwanted puberty but also to buy the child more time to explore gender","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1294.0,"score_ratio":1.0909090909} {"post_id":"6bv0pv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy Dear all, I have been debating my view with friends for sometime. My view is that children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy, be it Physiological, Psychological or Pharmaceutical. The reason I feel this way; is that up to and including adolescence, a person's identity is still being formed, and for a child and their family to decide that they need to change their identity and body in such a radical and possibly irreversible way is I think unethical. I feel that too often in modern society parents give into the pressure and guilt of a child who feels they are born into the wrong gender. I agree that a child's health and happiness is paramount, but there has be a compromise between supporting the child and knowing what's best for them. I have no issue with adults wanting to change their identity, but feel it's not appropriate for children. I would be interested in hearing from anyone with professional experience or would happily accept the overall consensus, whether I am right or wrong to view this issue the way I do. Either feel way free to CHANGE MY VIEW JP","c_root_id_A":"dhq10pq","c_root_id_B":"dhq1su9","created_at_utc_A":1495118349,"created_at_utc_B":1495119223,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that trans people innately know that they are trans, just like someone homosexual innately knows they are gay or someone heterosexual knows they are attracted to the opposite sex. There's no rational explanation you can give, it just \"feels right\". So there's no way a child (or for that matter anyone) can make a rational argument saying they are trans until they reach your age threshold. If that's the case, why would you make someone grow up and experience severe gender dysphoria just in case they might change their mind later on? Forcing transgender children to go through puberty causes huge amounts of psychological pain: imagine being male but having your breasts grow and dealing with menstruation--I've heard it's as if you are living in a shell that is wholly alien and unnatural to you. Another issue: when do you draw the line and say they are old enough to make their own decision? 18 years old? You're considered an adult but you're not allowed yet allowed alcohol because your brain is still developing. 21 years old? But your brain continues to develop until your mid to late-twenties. So should we set the line at 27? You run into a host of problems here. Given that your approach has been the standard approach for decades (they'll grow out of it), and transgender youth have among the highest rates of suicide attempts, I'd say it's not really working.","human_ref_B":"First let's establish that for some children, gender dysphoria is a serious medical disorder. You have young kids with so much anxiety about gender dysphoria that they can socially withdraw from other children and become depressed and suicidal. When I was about 6 or 7 and realized my wish to change my body could never magically come true, I became bitter inside and stopped wanting to participate in childhood activities and entered a pattern of suffering and escapism. Despite high early test scores my grades plummeted. And the saddest part to me is how much time I spent plotting to kill myself, secretly (because I couldn't tell anyone about my feelings) while lying awake all night (I had insomnia from the anxiety). I settled on running with scissors and falling and plunging them into my heart, so that people could believe it was an accident, in case you want to know how a 1st grader plots their own death. See, I had the thoughts of gender dysphoria since I was 3 or 4 years old --- basically back to my earliest memories. When I was really young I was constantly daydreaming that I would wake up one day in the right body. I did this partly because the fantasies were enjoyable, but also because at that age I thought if I wished hard enough it could come true. So in just a few years, by the time period of the above paragraph, I had already spent 1000s of hours actively and consistently wanting to change my sex. You are worried about children changing their sex on a whim, and changing their minds later on. But you can see in my case it was not a whim, I had already given it far more thought than a lot of adults give to their major life decisions. Now the key is to understand: when something makes you suffer constantly, several times a day, every day for years, then you tend to think a lot about it. You think it through over and over, analyzing it from every angle, because you are desperate for relief. Children who face extreme hardship, such as growing up in a warzone, are well known to mature more quickly. That's similar to what being trans did to me, it ended my childhood bubble early and led to me thinking more like an adult at a young age. Since no one could know about my gender dysphoria, they just thought I was mature for my age and that's why I thought children were stupid and preferred the company of adults. Inside I was just bitter and I longed to experience the ``right'' childhood without gender dysphoria. So far I have conveyed the following points: 1. Children with gender dysphoria can actively suffer a lot. This is not like wanting some toy and your parents don't buy it for you, it's more like the first thing you think of every morning and the last thing you think of every night, and every time you think of it feels like being stabbed in the heart. 2. Children who suffer greatly are noted to, in general, mature more quickly because the bubble of imagination and naive trust that contributes to the modern childhood experience breaks at a certain point. Furthermore, people who suffer an ongoing burden will tend to think a lot about that burden, and for trans children this can add up to 1000s of hours spent thinking about their predicament by the time they are just starting school. 3. Finally, there are the therapists who have studied trans children. By talking to these children they know that stories like mine are not untypical, and they also see even more severe cases than I was. They realized through studying a lot of trans kids over the years, that these severe cases were not asking to transition on some kind of whim, rather it was a grave issue that the child has given an immense amount of thought to. When you talk to children who articulate so clearly and consistently about what they want, and how they are suffering, over frequent therapy visits over a period of several years, it becomes clear that this is not some childhood phase or passing interest that they will regret when they are older. It's only at this point that the therapist would support allowing the child to socially transition at home. One last thing: in any type of gender therapy the drive to transition always comes from the patient. Even for adults, a therapist won't say \"I think you should transition\", rather they are just listeners.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":874.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"6bv0pv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy Dear all, I have been debating my view with friends for sometime. My view is that children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy, be it Physiological, Psychological or Pharmaceutical. The reason I feel this way; is that up to and including adolescence, a person's identity is still being formed, and for a child and their family to decide that they need to change their identity and body in such a radical and possibly irreversible way is I think unethical. I feel that too often in modern society parents give into the pressure and guilt of a child who feels they are born into the wrong gender. I agree that a child's health and happiness is paramount, but there has be a compromise between supporting the child and knowing what's best for them. I have no issue with adults wanting to change their identity, but feel it's not appropriate for children. I would be interested in hearing from anyone with professional experience or would happily accept the overall consensus, whether I am right or wrong to view this issue the way I do. Either feel way free to CHANGE MY VIEW JP","c_root_id_A":"dhq0j22","c_root_id_B":"dhq1su9","created_at_utc_A":1495117789,"created_at_utc_B":1495119223,"score_A":3,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"What about other kinds of therapy? Should a child who self-harms be allowed to see a therapist? Should an infant born with ambiguous genitals be given surgery to address the ambiguity?","human_ref_B":"First let's establish that for some children, gender dysphoria is a serious medical disorder. You have young kids with so much anxiety about gender dysphoria that they can socially withdraw from other children and become depressed and suicidal. When I was about 6 or 7 and realized my wish to change my body could never magically come true, I became bitter inside and stopped wanting to participate in childhood activities and entered a pattern of suffering and escapism. Despite high early test scores my grades plummeted. And the saddest part to me is how much time I spent plotting to kill myself, secretly (because I couldn't tell anyone about my feelings) while lying awake all night (I had insomnia from the anxiety). I settled on running with scissors and falling and plunging them into my heart, so that people could believe it was an accident, in case you want to know how a 1st grader plots their own death. See, I had the thoughts of gender dysphoria since I was 3 or 4 years old --- basically back to my earliest memories. When I was really young I was constantly daydreaming that I would wake up one day in the right body. I did this partly because the fantasies were enjoyable, but also because at that age I thought if I wished hard enough it could come true. So in just a few years, by the time period of the above paragraph, I had already spent 1000s of hours actively and consistently wanting to change my sex. You are worried about children changing their sex on a whim, and changing their minds later on. But you can see in my case it was not a whim, I had already given it far more thought than a lot of adults give to their major life decisions. Now the key is to understand: when something makes you suffer constantly, several times a day, every day for years, then you tend to think a lot about it. You think it through over and over, analyzing it from every angle, because you are desperate for relief. Children who face extreme hardship, such as growing up in a warzone, are well known to mature more quickly. That's similar to what being trans did to me, it ended my childhood bubble early and led to me thinking more like an adult at a young age. Since no one could know about my gender dysphoria, they just thought I was mature for my age and that's why I thought children were stupid and preferred the company of adults. Inside I was just bitter and I longed to experience the ``right'' childhood without gender dysphoria. So far I have conveyed the following points: 1. Children with gender dysphoria can actively suffer a lot. This is not like wanting some toy and your parents don't buy it for you, it's more like the first thing you think of every morning and the last thing you think of every night, and every time you think of it feels like being stabbed in the heart. 2. Children who suffer greatly are noted to, in general, mature more quickly because the bubble of imagination and naive trust that contributes to the modern childhood experience breaks at a certain point. Furthermore, people who suffer an ongoing burden will tend to think a lot about that burden, and for trans children this can add up to 1000s of hours spent thinking about their predicament by the time they are just starting school. 3. Finally, there are the therapists who have studied trans children. By talking to these children they know that stories like mine are not untypical, and they also see even more severe cases than I was. They realized through studying a lot of trans kids over the years, that these severe cases were not asking to transition on some kind of whim, rather it was a grave issue that the child has given an immense amount of thought to. When you talk to children who articulate so clearly and consistently about what they want, and how they are suffering, over frequent therapy visits over a period of several years, it becomes clear that this is not some childhood phase or passing interest that they will regret when they are older. It's only at this point that the therapist would support allowing the child to socially transition at home. One last thing: in any type of gender therapy the drive to transition always comes from the patient. Even for adults, a therapist won't say \"I think you should transition\", rather they are just listeners.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1434.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"6bv0pv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy Dear all, I have been debating my view with friends for sometime. My view is that children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy, be it Physiological, Psychological or Pharmaceutical. The reason I feel this way; is that up to and including adolescence, a person's identity is still being formed, and for a child and their family to decide that they need to change their identity and body in such a radical and possibly irreversible way is I think unethical. I feel that too often in modern society parents give into the pressure and guilt of a child who feels they are born into the wrong gender. I agree that a child's health and happiness is paramount, but there has be a compromise between supporting the child and knowing what's best for them. I have no issue with adults wanting to change their identity, but feel it's not appropriate for children. I would be interested in hearing from anyone with professional experience or would happily accept the overall consensus, whether I am right or wrong to view this issue the way I do. Either feel way free to CHANGE MY VIEW JP","c_root_id_A":"dhq0j22","c_root_id_B":"dhq0njj","created_at_utc_A":1495117789,"created_at_utc_B":1495117929,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"What about other kinds of therapy? Should a child who self-harms be allowed to see a therapist? Should an infant born with ambiguous genitals be given surgery to address the ambiguity?","human_ref_B":"I recommend this fact sheet by the APA. It gives some criteria that doctors can use to determine, whether a child is likely transgender. Trans children need to show \"a **pervasive, consistent, persistent and insistent** sense of being the other gender, and some degree of gender dysphoria\" (i.e., discomfort related to their bodies not matching their internal sense of gender). Some quotes from the document that support the view that (at least non-surgical) treatment is strongly advised: > * Children usually have a sense of their gender identity between age 2 to 5 > * Early intervention may improve outcomes for gender diverse and transgender children who are experiencing emotional distress. > * Children who experience affirming and supportive responses to their gender identity are more likely to have improved mental health outcomes. > * Individualized treatment plans based on the child\u2019s specific situation and needs should be created for each case. > * Psychologists\u2019 work with family can include assisting them to seek support and move toward acceptance, encouraging the child\u2019s gender exploration and expression, speaking with the child about gender > * The earliest a child should be referred for medical treatment of gender dysphoria is just before the onset of puberty > * Puberty blocking medication can be used to put a temporary halt on puberty and not only allow a child to stop an unwanted puberty but also to buy the child more time to explore gender","labels":0,"seconds_difference":140.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"6bv0pv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy Dear all, I have been debating my view with friends for sometime. My view is that children should not be able to access gender reassignment therapy, be it Physiological, Psychological or Pharmaceutical. The reason I feel this way; is that up to and including adolescence, a person's identity is still being formed, and for a child and their family to decide that they need to change their identity and body in such a radical and possibly irreversible way is I think unethical. I feel that too often in modern society parents give into the pressure and guilt of a child who feels they are born into the wrong gender. I agree that a child's health and happiness is paramount, but there has be a compromise between supporting the child and knowing what's best for them. I have no issue with adults wanting to change their identity, but feel it's not appropriate for children. I would be interested in hearing from anyone with professional experience or would happily accept the overall consensus, whether I am right or wrong to view this issue the way I do. Either feel way free to CHANGE MY VIEW JP","c_root_id_A":"dhq10pq","c_root_id_B":"dhq0j22","created_at_utc_A":1495118349,"created_at_utc_B":1495117789,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that trans people innately know that they are trans, just like someone homosexual innately knows they are gay or someone heterosexual knows they are attracted to the opposite sex. There's no rational explanation you can give, it just \"feels right\". So there's no way a child (or for that matter anyone) can make a rational argument saying they are trans until they reach your age threshold. If that's the case, why would you make someone grow up and experience severe gender dysphoria just in case they might change their mind later on? Forcing transgender children to go through puberty causes huge amounts of psychological pain: imagine being male but having your breasts grow and dealing with menstruation--I've heard it's as if you are living in a shell that is wholly alien and unnatural to you. Another issue: when do you draw the line and say they are old enough to make their own decision? 18 years old? You're considered an adult but you're not allowed yet allowed alcohol because your brain is still developing. 21 years old? But your brain continues to develop until your mid to late-twenties. So should we set the line at 27? You run into a host of problems here. Given that your approach has been the standard approach for decades (they'll grow out of it), and transgender youth have among the highest rates of suicide attempts, I'd say it's not really working.","human_ref_B":"What about other kinds of therapy? Should a child who self-harms be allowed to see a therapist? Should an infant born with ambiguous genitals be given surgery to address the ambiguity?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":560.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"w4xw2w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: You and your family should be able to register to vote online. The Internet is an amazing tool. Why, you're using it right now! It is a series of tubes that connects information in a \"web\" like manner. People, corporations, governments all use it to send hundreds of trillions of dollars to each other nearly instantly across vast distances. You might even get your paycheck automatically deposited into your bank account thanks to the Internet! I agree that when society collapses we may need to revert back to paper and pencil voter registration (among other adjustments), but for the time being, this idea seems like it could work well!","c_root_id_A":"ih4t2v1","c_root_id_B":"ih4t2ov","created_at_utc_A":1658454184,"created_at_utc_B":1658454182,"score_A":16,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You already can register to vote online","human_ref_B":"You already can in the vast majority of states. https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/issues\/voting-rights\/promoting-access-ballot\/states-online-voter-registration","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333} {"post_id":"w4xw2w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: You and your family should be able to register to vote online. The Internet is an amazing tool. Why, you're using it right now! It is a series of tubes that connects information in a \"web\" like manner. People, corporations, governments all use it to send hundreds of trillions of dollars to each other nearly instantly across vast distances. You might even get your paycheck automatically deposited into your bank account thanks to the Internet! I agree that when society collapses we may need to revert back to paper and pencil voter registration (among other adjustments), but for the time being, this idea seems like it could work well!","c_root_id_A":"ih4vdj8","c_root_id_B":"ih4t2ov","created_at_utc_A":1658455245,"created_at_utc_B":1658454182,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm confused by the \"and your family\" part. A family doesn't vote, individuals vote. Each individual in the family can register to vote online (in most states) but I shouldn't be able to register the rest of my family to vote. I could register without telling them and just vote for them.","human_ref_B":"You already can in the vast majority of states. https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/issues\/voting-rights\/promoting-access-ballot\/states-online-voter-registration","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1063.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"w4xw2w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: You and your family should be able to register to vote online. The Internet is an amazing tool. Why, you're using it right now! It is a series of tubes that connects information in a \"web\" like manner. People, corporations, governments all use it to send hundreds of trillions of dollars to each other nearly instantly across vast distances. You might even get your paycheck automatically deposited into your bank account thanks to the Internet! I agree that when society collapses we may need to revert back to paper and pencil voter registration (among other adjustments), but for the time being, this idea seems like it could work well!","c_root_id_A":"ih4t362","c_root_id_B":"ih4vdj8","created_at_utc_A":1658454188,"created_at_utc_B":1658455245,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"In some states (US) you can (I'm assuming that implicit in your view is \"...and this isn't currently the case\"). I've never done anything voting-related in person (Colorado) - online registration and mail-in ballots.","human_ref_B":"I'm confused by the \"and your family\" part. A family doesn't vote, individuals vote. Each individual in the family can register to vote online (in most states) but I shouldn't be able to register the rest of my family to vote. I could register without telling them and just vote for them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1057.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"w4xw2w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: You and your family should be able to register to vote online. The Internet is an amazing tool. Why, you're using it right now! It is a series of tubes that connects information in a \"web\" like manner. People, corporations, governments all use it to send hundreds of trillions of dollars to each other nearly instantly across vast distances. You might even get your paycheck automatically deposited into your bank account thanks to the Internet! I agree that when society collapses we may need to revert back to paper and pencil voter registration (among other adjustments), but for the time being, this idea seems like it could work well!","c_root_id_A":"ih68csa","c_root_id_B":"ih4t2ov","created_at_utc_A":1658486640,"created_at_utc_B":1658454182,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I can and do register to vote online. Where do you live that this isn't possible?","human_ref_B":"You already can in the vast majority of states. https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/issues\/voting-rights\/promoting-access-ballot\/states-online-voter-registration","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32458.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"w4xw2w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: You and your family should be able to register to vote online. The Internet is an amazing tool. Why, you're using it right now! It is a series of tubes that connects information in a \"web\" like manner. People, corporations, governments all use it to send hundreds of trillions of dollars to each other nearly instantly across vast distances. You might even get your paycheck automatically deposited into your bank account thanks to the Internet! I agree that when society collapses we may need to revert back to paper and pencil voter registration (among other adjustments), but for the time being, this idea seems like it could work well!","c_root_id_A":"ih68csa","c_root_id_B":"ih4t362","created_at_utc_A":1658486640,"created_at_utc_B":1658454188,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I can and do register to vote online. Where do you live that this isn't possible?","human_ref_B":"In some states (US) you can (I'm assuming that implicit in your view is \"...and this isn't currently the case\"). I've never done anything voting-related in person (Colorado) - online registration and mail-in ballots.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32452.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"w4xw2w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.59,"history":"CMV: You and your family should be able to register to vote online. The Internet is an amazing tool. Why, you're using it right now! It is a series of tubes that connects information in a \"web\" like manner. People, corporations, governments all use it to send hundreds of trillions of dollars to each other nearly instantly across vast distances. You might even get your paycheck automatically deposited into your bank account thanks to the Internet! I agree that when society collapses we may need to revert back to paper and pencil voter registration (among other adjustments), but for the time being, this idea seems like it could work well!","c_root_id_A":"ih68csa","c_root_id_B":"ih4wb6l","created_at_utc_A":1658486640,"created_at_utc_B":1658455679,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I can and do register to vote online. Where do you live that this isn't possible?","human_ref_B":"As long as they provide documents that show they are citizens and allowed to vote","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30961.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zjsmd","c_root_id_B":"g5zi6is","created_at_utc_A":1600614036,"created_at_utc_B":1600613452,"score_A":111,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"When you see \"the people should decide\" it's usually specifically throwing shade at McConnell for his statements and actions 4 years ago. This event does not exist in a vacuum. In a vacuum, I agree with you. In the context of the Republican Senators' bullshit four years ago, it takes on additional meaning.","human_ref_B":"Do you think there is any merit to the argument that the Senate should wait? RBG died 46 days before the election. Looking at historical data, the latest someone has ever been nominated and confirmed in an election year is when a spot became available 144 days before the election, which is 3x the current situation. https:\/\/fivethirtyeight.com\/features\/what-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death-could-mean-for-2020-and-the-supreme-court\/ Also, this is pretty much at the discretion of whoever leads the senate. My position is, \"if a specific person leading the senate decides that the people should have a say if a spot opens up in an election year, then the people should decide if a spot opens up in an election year so long as that same person is leading the senate.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":584.0,"score_ratio":2.8461538462} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zhjjn","c_root_id_B":"g5zjsmd","created_at_utc_A":1600613176,"created_at_utc_B":1600614036,"score_A":13,"score_B":111,"human_ref_A":"I think the practical reasons w\/r\/t timetable are valid. It doesn\u2019t take 9 months to vet, nominate, and confirm a justice but it does take some time. Rushing to do this before a new Congress is seated is likely to result in a poorly considered nominee. Get enough of those and the court loses its perceived legitimacy.","human_ref_B":"When you see \"the people should decide\" it's usually specifically throwing shade at McConnell for his statements and actions 4 years ago. This event does not exist in a vacuum. In a vacuum, I agree with you. In the context of the Republican Senators' bullshit four years ago, it takes on additional meaning.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":860.0,"score_ratio":8.5384615385} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zhjjn","c_root_id_B":"g5zi6is","created_at_utc_A":1600613176,"created_at_utc_B":1600613452,"score_A":13,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"I think the practical reasons w\/r\/t timetable are valid. It doesn\u2019t take 9 months to vet, nominate, and confirm a justice but it does take some time. Rushing to do this before a new Congress is seated is likely to result in a poorly considered nominee. Get enough of those and the court loses its perceived legitimacy.","human_ref_B":"Do you think there is any merit to the argument that the Senate should wait? RBG died 46 days before the election. Looking at historical data, the latest someone has ever been nominated and confirmed in an election year is when a spot became available 144 days before the election, which is 3x the current situation. https:\/\/fivethirtyeight.com\/features\/what-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death-could-mean-for-2020-and-the-supreme-court\/ Also, this is pretty much at the discretion of whoever leads the senate. My position is, \"if a specific person leading the senate decides that the people should have a say if a spot opens up in an election year, then the people should decide if a spot opens up in an election year so long as that same person is leading the senate.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":276.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5ztv3z","c_root_id_B":"g5zqdg5","created_at_utc_A":1600618683,"created_at_utc_B":1600617207,"score_A":22,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"> The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. You're arguing about a side issue. People are upset about the world-class hypocrisy on display, not the actual argument that the Senate should or shouldn't delay. For example, I agree with you that \"the people should decide\" (there should be a delay) argument is silly. But the GOP made this argument when it was convenient for them and are abandoning it when it's not. THAT's why there should be delay - because it's a fundamental principal of fairness.","human_ref_B":"I think most people would agree but this is the argument that Republicans made 4 years ago and why Obama was denied an appointment. When people today make that argument it is because they want fairness in the process. But I do agree with you overall that the supreme court has become too political... it shouldn't be up to the voters or the president\/senate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1476.0,"score_ratio":1.375} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5ztv3z","c_root_id_B":"g5zhjjn","created_at_utc_A":1600618683,"created_at_utc_B":1600613176,"score_A":22,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"> The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. You're arguing about a side issue. People are upset about the world-class hypocrisy on display, not the actual argument that the Senate should or shouldn't delay. For example, I agree with you that \"the people should decide\" (there should be a delay) argument is silly. But the GOP made this argument when it was convenient for them and are abandoning it when it's not. THAT's why there should be delay - because it's a fundamental principal of fairness.","human_ref_B":"I think the practical reasons w\/r\/t timetable are valid. It doesn\u2019t take 9 months to vet, nominate, and confirm a justice but it does take some time. Rushing to do this before a new Congress is seated is likely to result in a poorly considered nominee. Get enough of those and the court loses its perceived legitimacy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5507.0,"score_ratio":1.6923076923} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zmpko","c_root_id_B":"g5ztv3z","created_at_utc_A":1600615344,"created_at_utc_B":1600618683,"score_A":6,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"> The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. Is it really wrong though? Republicans controlled the senate then and they have the same numbers in the senate now. You can look at it as technically everyone agrees except Republicans controlled the senate both times. Its also why you shouldn't change rules. If it wasn't for getting rid of the filibuster rule, nominating a supreme court justice wouldn't even be possible right now. You could even go back to 2018 to the Kavanaugh hearings. A lot of people argue the way that played out is the only reason Republicans kept their majority. Whoever is in charge decides the rules and if people didn't like that in 2016, they should have voted them out in 2016\/2018. On top of all that, lawsuits are going to be flying all over the place in states that just implemented universal mail-in ballots. Now's not the time for any potential deadlocks.","human_ref_B":"> The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. You're arguing about a side issue. People are upset about the world-class hypocrisy on display, not the actual argument that the Senate should or shouldn't delay. For example, I agree with you that \"the people should decide\" (there should be a delay) argument is silly. But the GOP made this argument when it was convenient for them and are abandoning it when it's not. THAT's why there should be delay - because it's a fundamental principal of fairness.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3339.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zm4td","c_root_id_B":"g5ztv3z","created_at_utc_A":1600615061,"created_at_utc_B":1600618683,"score_A":2,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"When people vote on a new president, they are voting based on expectations on how they will perform. But when voting on an incumbent, they actually now have data on how that president behaves. It's a different situation, and it's not unfair to say there are people who would have voted differently then if they knew what they knew now","human_ref_B":"> The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. You're arguing about a side issue. People are upset about the world-class hypocrisy on display, not the actual argument that the Senate should or shouldn't delay. For example, I agree with you that \"the people should decide\" (there should be a delay) argument is silly. But the GOP made this argument when it was convenient for them and are abandoning it when it's not. THAT's why there should be delay - because it's a fundamental principal of fairness.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3622.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zhjjn","c_root_id_B":"g5zqdg5","created_at_utc_A":1600613176,"created_at_utc_B":1600617207,"score_A":13,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"I think the practical reasons w\/r\/t timetable are valid. It doesn\u2019t take 9 months to vet, nominate, and confirm a justice but it does take some time. Rushing to do this before a new Congress is seated is likely to result in a poorly considered nominee. Get enough of those and the court loses its perceived legitimacy.","human_ref_B":"I think most people would agree but this is the argument that Republicans made 4 years ago and why Obama was denied an appointment. When people today make that argument it is because they want fairness in the process. But I do agree with you overall that the supreme court has become too political... it shouldn't be up to the voters or the president\/senate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4031.0,"score_ratio":1.2307692308} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zmpko","c_root_id_B":"g5zqdg5","created_at_utc_A":1600615344,"created_at_utc_B":1600617207,"score_A":6,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"> The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. Is it really wrong though? Republicans controlled the senate then and they have the same numbers in the senate now. You can look at it as technically everyone agrees except Republicans controlled the senate both times. Its also why you shouldn't change rules. If it wasn't for getting rid of the filibuster rule, nominating a supreme court justice wouldn't even be possible right now. You could even go back to 2018 to the Kavanaugh hearings. A lot of people argue the way that played out is the only reason Republicans kept their majority. Whoever is in charge decides the rules and if people didn't like that in 2016, they should have voted them out in 2016\/2018. On top of all that, lawsuits are going to be flying all over the place in states that just implemented universal mail-in ballots. Now's not the time for any potential deadlocks.","human_ref_B":"I think most people would agree but this is the argument that Republicans made 4 years ago and why Obama was denied an appointment. When people today make that argument it is because they want fairness in the process. But I do agree with you overall that the supreme court has become too political... it shouldn't be up to the voters or the president\/senate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1863.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zm4td","c_root_id_B":"g5zqdg5","created_at_utc_A":1600615061,"created_at_utc_B":1600617207,"score_A":2,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"When people vote on a new president, they are voting based on expectations on how they will perform. But when voting on an incumbent, they actually now have data on how that president behaves. It's a different situation, and it's not unfair to say there are people who would have voted differently then if they knew what they knew now","human_ref_B":"I think most people would agree but this is the argument that Republicans made 4 years ago and why Obama was denied an appointment. When people today make that argument it is because they want fairness in the process. But I do agree with you overall that the supreme court has become too political... it shouldn't be up to the voters or the president\/senate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2146.0,"score_ratio":8.0} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g60w1gm","c_root_id_B":"g5zhjjn","created_at_utc_A":1600633694,"created_at_utc_B":1600613176,"score_A":14,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"That's fair. But if you're correct the only fair person to nominate before this election would be Merrick Garland. There's either a precedent to wait, or waiting doesn't matter and the country should right the wrong of 2016. What good is a government if most of the country doesn't believe it's fair? It'll be the beginning of the end. I think it doesn't matter what we do, wait or not, the real important factor is consistency.","human_ref_B":"I think the practical reasons w\/r\/t timetable are valid. It doesn\u2019t take 9 months to vet, nominate, and confirm a justice but it does take some time. Rushing to do this before a new Congress is seated is likely to result in a poorly considered nominee. Get enough of those and the court loses its perceived legitimacy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20518.0,"score_ratio":1.0769230769} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g60w1gm","c_root_id_B":"g6048in","created_at_utc_A":1600633694,"created_at_utc_B":1600623380,"score_A":14,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"That's fair. But if you're correct the only fair person to nominate before this election would be Merrick Garland. There's either a precedent to wait, or waiting doesn't matter and the country should right the wrong of 2016. What good is a government if most of the country doesn't believe it's fair? It'll be the beginning of the end. I think it doesn't matter what we do, wait or not, the real important factor is consistency.","human_ref_B":"In a vacuum, sure. But in reality, prisoner\u2019s dilemma. The situation is also a little different this time around. Votes have *already been cast* in the election. We\u2019re so close that, were things the other way around, I\u2019d say there\u2019s a decent argument that a president shouldn\u2019t chose a nominee this close to the election. Also taking into account the fact the election will possibly be contested and go to the Supreme Court... Not to mention the distorted representation under our current system, where the two branches (President and Senate) are both controlled by people representing a minority of voters. Trump lost the popular vote by a decent margin, and the GOP majority in the senate represents in reality only about 37% of eligible voters, because of places like the Dakotas.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10314.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g60w1gm","c_root_id_B":"g5zmpko","created_at_utc_A":1600633694,"created_at_utc_B":1600615344,"score_A":14,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"That's fair. But if you're correct the only fair person to nominate before this election would be Merrick Garland. There's either a precedent to wait, or waiting doesn't matter and the country should right the wrong of 2016. What good is a government if most of the country doesn't believe it's fair? It'll be the beginning of the end. I think it doesn't matter what we do, wait or not, the real important factor is consistency.","human_ref_B":"> The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. Is it really wrong though? Republicans controlled the senate then and they have the same numbers in the senate now. You can look at it as technically everyone agrees except Republicans controlled the senate both times. Its also why you shouldn't change rules. If it wasn't for getting rid of the filibuster rule, nominating a supreme court justice wouldn't even be possible right now. You could even go back to 2018 to the Kavanaugh hearings. A lot of people argue the way that played out is the only reason Republicans kept their majority. Whoever is in charge decides the rules and if people didn't like that in 2016, they should have voted them out in 2016\/2018. On top of all that, lawsuits are going to be flying all over the place in states that just implemented universal mail-in ballots. Now's not the time for any potential deadlocks.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18350.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g60mbv1","c_root_id_B":"g60w1gm","created_at_utc_A":1600629434,"created_at_utc_B":1600633694,"score_A":5,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"It depends on context, don't you think? Certainly in a case where a president failed to win the popular vote in an election with established foreign interference, has an abysmal approval rating, has fumbled a crisis that's cost probably 100,000 needless American lives, has stated that it's okay because most of the deaths are in blue states, has ignored bounties on the lives of American servicemen sponsored by his foreign patron, to list a few issues... then allowing such a president a SCOTUS appointment with three months left in his term is problematic. Allowing it when his party made a moral issue of denying his popular, successful predecessor an appointment with over 200 days left in his term is rather shameful. But ethics and morality have nothing to do with any of this.","human_ref_B":"That's fair. But if you're correct the only fair person to nominate before this election would be Merrick Garland. There's either a precedent to wait, or waiting doesn't matter and the country should right the wrong of 2016. What good is a government if most of the country doesn't believe it's fair? It'll be the beginning of the end. I think it doesn't matter what we do, wait or not, the real important factor is consistency.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4260.0,"score_ratio":2.8} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g60hop3","c_root_id_B":"g60w1gm","created_at_utc_A":1600627705,"created_at_utc_B":1600633694,"score_A":3,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"During the Obama administration it was decided largely by republicans that refused to confirm a nomination, that a nomination could not be confirmed on the last year. Then the people voted. Knowing this. Knowing that the if another justice died in the last year that they did not want the person they voted in to make that decision. Now republicans are trying to change it to be against what the people voted for. The people did not decide that Trump should be able to nominate and confirm a justice in the last year based off the information available to them at the time they voted.","human_ref_B":"That's fair. But if you're correct the only fair person to nominate before this election would be Merrick Garland. There's either a precedent to wait, or waiting doesn't matter and the country should right the wrong of 2016. What good is a government if most of the country doesn't believe it's fair? It'll be the beginning of the end. I think it doesn't matter what we do, wait or not, the real important factor is consistency.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5989.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g60w1gm","c_root_id_B":"g5zm4td","created_at_utc_A":1600633694,"created_at_utc_B":1600615061,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"That's fair. But if you're correct the only fair person to nominate before this election would be Merrick Garland. There's either a precedent to wait, or waiting doesn't matter and the country should right the wrong of 2016. What good is a government if most of the country doesn't believe it's fair? It'll be the beginning of the end. I think it doesn't matter what we do, wait or not, the real important factor is consistency.","human_ref_B":"When people vote on a new president, they are voting based on expectations on how they will perform. But when voting on an incumbent, they actually now have data on how that president behaves. It's a different situation, and it's not unfair to say there are people who would have voted differently then if they knew what they knew now","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18633.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g60vhbv","c_root_id_B":"g60w1gm","created_at_utc_A":1600633453,"created_at_utc_B":1600633694,"score_A":2,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Years ago, I would agree. However, the precedent has already been set, and to break it would be more harmful than not. I'm the same in that in some ways I'd benefit with a conservative judge, but I'd rather the system work.","human_ref_B":"That's fair. But if you're correct the only fair person to nominate before this election would be Merrick Garland. There's either a precedent to wait, or waiting doesn't matter and the country should right the wrong of 2016. What good is a government if most of the country doesn't believe it's fair? It'll be the beginning of the end. I think it doesn't matter what we do, wait or not, the real important factor is consistency.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":241.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g6048in","c_root_id_B":"g5zmpko","created_at_utc_A":1600623380,"created_at_utc_B":1600615344,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"In a vacuum, sure. But in reality, prisoner\u2019s dilemma. The situation is also a little different this time around. Votes have *already been cast* in the election. We\u2019re so close that, were things the other way around, I\u2019d say there\u2019s a decent argument that a president shouldn\u2019t chose a nominee this close to the election. Also taking into account the fact the election will possibly be contested and go to the Supreme Court... Not to mention the distorted representation under our current system, where the two branches (President and Senate) are both controlled by people representing a minority of voters. Trump lost the popular vote by a decent margin, and the GOP majority in the senate represents in reality only about 37% of eligible voters, because of places like the Dakotas.","human_ref_B":"> The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. Is it really wrong though? Republicans controlled the senate then and they have the same numbers in the senate now. You can look at it as technically everyone agrees except Republicans controlled the senate both times. Its also why you shouldn't change rules. If it wasn't for getting rid of the filibuster rule, nominating a supreme court justice wouldn't even be possible right now. You could even go back to 2018 to the Kavanaugh hearings. A lot of people argue the way that played out is the only reason Republicans kept their majority. Whoever is in charge decides the rules and if people didn't like that in 2016, they should have voted them out in 2016\/2018. On top of all that, lawsuits are going to be flying all over the place in states that just implemented universal mail-in ballots. Now's not the time for any potential deadlocks.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8036.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zm4td","c_root_id_B":"g6048in","created_at_utc_A":1600615061,"created_at_utc_B":1600623380,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"When people vote on a new president, they are voting based on expectations on how they will perform. But when voting on an incumbent, they actually now have data on how that president behaves. It's a different situation, and it's not unfair to say there are people who would have voted differently then if they knew what they knew now","human_ref_B":"In a vacuum, sure. But in reality, prisoner\u2019s dilemma. The situation is also a little different this time around. Votes have *already been cast* in the election. We\u2019re so close that, were things the other way around, I\u2019d say there\u2019s a decent argument that a president shouldn\u2019t chose a nominee this close to the election. Also taking into account the fact the election will possibly be contested and go to the Supreme Court... Not to mention the distorted representation under our current system, where the two branches (President and Senate) are both controlled by people representing a minority of voters. Trump lost the popular vote by a decent margin, and the GOP majority in the senate represents in reality only about 37% of eligible voters, because of places like the Dakotas.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8319.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zmpko","c_root_id_B":"g5zm4td","created_at_utc_A":1600615344,"created_at_utc_B":1600615061,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. Is it really wrong though? Republicans controlled the senate then and they have the same numbers in the senate now. You can look at it as technically everyone agrees except Republicans controlled the senate both times. Its also why you shouldn't change rules. If it wasn't for getting rid of the filibuster rule, nominating a supreme court justice wouldn't even be possible right now. You could even go back to 2018 to the Kavanaugh hearings. A lot of people argue the way that played out is the only reason Republicans kept their majority. Whoever is in charge decides the rules and if people didn't like that in 2016, they should have voted them out in 2016\/2018. On top of all that, lawsuits are going to be flying all over the place in states that just implemented universal mail-in ballots. Now's not the time for any potential deadlocks.","human_ref_B":"When people vote on a new president, they are voting based on expectations on how they will perform. But when voting on an incumbent, they actually now have data on how that president behaves. It's a different situation, and it's not unfair to say there are people who would have voted differently then if they knew what they knew now","labels":1,"seconds_difference":283.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g60hop3","c_root_id_B":"g60mbv1","created_at_utc_A":1600627705,"created_at_utc_B":1600629434,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"During the Obama administration it was decided largely by republicans that refused to confirm a nomination, that a nomination could not be confirmed on the last year. Then the people voted. Knowing this. Knowing that the if another justice died in the last year that they did not want the person they voted in to make that decision. Now republicans are trying to change it to be against what the people voted for. The people did not decide that Trump should be able to nominate and confirm a justice in the last year based off the information available to them at the time they voted.","human_ref_B":"It depends on context, don't you think? Certainly in a case where a president failed to win the popular vote in an election with established foreign interference, has an abysmal approval rating, has fumbled a crisis that's cost probably 100,000 needless American lives, has stated that it's okay because most of the deaths are in blue states, has ignored bounties on the lives of American servicemen sponsored by his foreign patron, to list a few issues... then allowing such a president a SCOTUS appointment with three months left in his term is problematic. Allowing it when his party made a moral issue of denying his popular, successful predecessor an appointment with over 200 days left in his term is rather shameful. But ethics and morality have nothing to do with any of this.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1729.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g60mbv1","c_root_id_B":"g5zm4td","created_at_utc_A":1600629434,"created_at_utc_B":1600615061,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It depends on context, don't you think? Certainly in a case where a president failed to win the popular vote in an election with established foreign interference, has an abysmal approval rating, has fumbled a crisis that's cost probably 100,000 needless American lives, has stated that it's okay because most of the deaths are in blue states, has ignored bounties on the lives of American servicemen sponsored by his foreign patron, to list a few issues... then allowing such a president a SCOTUS appointment with three months left in his term is problematic. Allowing it when his party made a moral issue of denying his popular, successful predecessor an appointment with over 200 days left in his term is rather shameful. But ethics and morality have nothing to do with any of this.","human_ref_B":"When people vote on a new president, they are voting based on expectations on how they will perform. But when voting on an incumbent, they actually now have data on how that president behaves. It's a different situation, and it's not unfair to say there are people who would have voted differently then if they knew what they knew now","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14373.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g617dh9","c_root_id_B":"g60hop3","created_at_utc_A":1600637670,"created_at_utc_B":1600627705,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm inclined to agree with you; however, the process is no longer how it was originally followed. Traditionally, a confirmation would not happen until 60 votes were attained, a number that implies decisive political favor. In this context, your stance would be extremely understandable. But only a couple of years ago, Republicans changed those rules to suit their own political needs. Today, there needs to be merely 50 votes and the vice president's tie-breaking vote for a confirmation. This is not only far less decisive but it's not even a majority of voting senators. Considering this new procedural context, I do not agree that we should make a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the nation, during the final months of a presidency. Allowing such major decisions to occur in the context of razor thin margins only contributes to the partisanship that plagues us. This sort of political, legislative,and judicial whiplash is horrible for our nation. Requiring decisive political support for our most important decisions is the wise thing to do.","human_ref_B":"During the Obama administration it was decided largely by republicans that refused to confirm a nomination, that a nomination could not be confirmed on the last year. Then the people voted. Knowing this. Knowing that the if another justice died in the last year that they did not want the person they voted in to make that decision. Now republicans are trying to change it to be against what the people voted for. The people did not decide that Trump should be able to nominate and confirm a justice in the last year based off the information available to them at the time they voted.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9965.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zm4td","c_root_id_B":"g617dh9","created_at_utc_A":1600615061,"created_at_utc_B":1600637670,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"When people vote on a new president, they are voting based on expectations on how they will perform. But when voting on an incumbent, they actually now have data on how that president behaves. It's a different situation, and it's not unfair to say there are people who would have voted differently then if they knew what they knew now","human_ref_B":"I'm inclined to agree with you; however, the process is no longer how it was originally followed. Traditionally, a confirmation would not happen until 60 votes were attained, a number that implies decisive political favor. In this context, your stance would be extremely understandable. But only a couple of years ago, Republicans changed those rules to suit their own political needs. Today, there needs to be merely 50 votes and the vice president's tie-breaking vote for a confirmation. This is not only far less decisive but it's not even a majority of voting senators. Considering this new procedural context, I do not agree that we should make a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the nation, during the final months of a presidency. Allowing such major decisions to occur in the context of razor thin margins only contributes to the partisanship that plagues us. This sort of political, legislative,and judicial whiplash is horrible for our nation. Requiring decisive political support for our most important decisions is the wise thing to do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22609.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g60vhbv","c_root_id_B":"g617dh9","created_at_utc_A":1600633453,"created_at_utc_B":1600637670,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Years ago, I would agree. However, the precedent has already been set, and to break it would be more harmful than not. I'm the same in that in some ways I'd benefit with a conservative judge, but I'd rather the system work.","human_ref_B":"I'm inclined to agree with you; however, the process is no longer how it was originally followed. Traditionally, a confirmation would not happen until 60 votes were attained, a number that implies decisive political favor. In this context, your stance would be extremely understandable. But only a couple of years ago, Republicans changed those rules to suit their own political needs. Today, there needs to be merely 50 votes and the vice president's tie-breaking vote for a confirmation. This is not only far less decisive but it's not even a majority of voting senators. Considering this new procedural context, I do not agree that we should make a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the nation, during the final months of a presidency. Allowing such major decisions to occur in the context of razor thin margins only contributes to the partisanship that plagues us. This sort of political, legislative,and judicial whiplash is horrible for our nation. Requiring decisive political support for our most important decisions is the wise thing to do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4217.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"iwf040","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The argument that the President\/Senate shouldn't select someone for the Supreme Court months before an election because \"the people should decide\" is invalid For personal and ideological reasons, I really hope Trump\/etc doesn't get to select another Supreme Court justice, but the statement tha t \"the people should decide\" isn't really valid. \"The people\" (ignoring the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's a separate topic), already decided Trump should have the decision on who's nominated when they voted him in 4 years ago and the people decided on the Senators who'd be doing the approval during their last election(s). The argument that they shouldn't move forward was wrong 4 years ago when they held up Garland's confirmation, and it's wrong now. The fact is the people in time limited positions should be performing the duties of those positions during their time. From the moment t he president is sworn into office until the moment their term is up they are the president and have that authority and responsibility, s ame with members of congress. If on the last day of their session, congress decided to declare war on Canada, they could do that (the ne xt Congress could immediately end it, but that's not the point). There are practical issues related to the timelines, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about the concept of \"the p eople should decide\" Personally, I think the whole way the SC is run should be changed, I think the justices should be rotated in and out from pool of all Fe deral judges, but that's also another topic.","c_root_id_A":"g5zm4td","c_root_id_B":"g60hop3","created_at_utc_A":1600615061,"created_at_utc_B":1600627705,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"When people vote on a new president, they are voting based on expectations on how they will perform. But when voting on an incumbent, they actually now have data on how that president behaves. It's a different situation, and it's not unfair to say there are people who would have voted differently then if they knew what they knew now","human_ref_B":"During the Obama administration it was decided largely by republicans that refused to confirm a nomination, that a nomination could not be confirmed on the last year. Then the people voted. Knowing this. Knowing that the if another justice died in the last year that they did not want the person they voted in to make that decision. Now republicans are trying to change it to be against what the people voted for. The people did not decide that Trump should be able to nominate and confirm a justice in the last year based off the information available to them at the time they voted.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12644.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"mrghwv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Toilet paper should be installed so that it unravels away from the wall, rather than next to the wall It feels better. Who wants to feel their hand scraping along the wall as they\u2019re trying to get toilet paper? Granted, it\u2019s not as bad as scratching your fingernails across a chalkboard, but it\u2019s close. It both feels bad and sounds bad for you and the people around you. It\u2019s cleaner. No matter how clean your walls are, it will always be cleaner to not touch them, thereby showing down the transfer of germs. Also, since your hand will likely be dirty, you will also be transferring germs from your hand to the wall, which will make the wall dirtier for the next visit. It\u2019s more convenient. If the toilet paper is away from the wall, you can just grab on to it and pull. But if it\u2019s sticking to the wall, you have to try to lift it from the wall (which is frustrating and makes horrible sounds), and then pull. And also since the toilet paper is rubbing along the wall, it can rip unexpectedly. Overall I just honestly don\u2019t understand why people do this. CMV","c_root_id_A":"gum163z","c_root_id_B":"gum16jl","created_at_utc_A":1618499037,"created_at_utc_B":1618499042,"score_A":9,"score_B":55,"human_ref_A":"If you have cats then often times they like pulling in toilet paper and if it's facing away from the wall it'll unroll but if it's facing toward the wall then it'll just spin","human_ref_B":"I will tell you why I do it: My cat. Having it unroll next to the wall cuts down on this behavior.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5.0,"score_ratio":6.1111111111} {"post_id":"mrghwv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Toilet paper should be installed so that it unravels away from the wall, rather than next to the wall It feels better. Who wants to feel their hand scraping along the wall as they\u2019re trying to get toilet paper? Granted, it\u2019s not as bad as scratching your fingernails across a chalkboard, but it\u2019s close. It both feels bad and sounds bad for you and the people around you. It\u2019s cleaner. No matter how clean your walls are, it will always be cleaner to not touch them, thereby showing down the transfer of germs. Also, since your hand will likely be dirty, you will also be transferring germs from your hand to the wall, which will make the wall dirtier for the next visit. It\u2019s more convenient. If the toilet paper is away from the wall, you can just grab on to it and pull. But if it\u2019s sticking to the wall, you have to try to lift it from the wall (which is frustrating and makes horrible sounds), and then pull. And also since the toilet paper is rubbing along the wall, it can rip unexpectedly. Overall I just honestly don\u2019t understand why people do this. CMV","c_root_id_A":"gum163z","c_root_id_B":"gum1lcr","created_at_utc_A":1618499037,"created_at_utc_B":1618499222,"score_A":9,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"If you have cats then often times they like pulling in toilet paper and if it's facing away from the wall it'll unroll but if it's facing toward the wall then it'll just spin","human_ref_B":"I don't understand why you're touching the wall regardless of the direction of the TP. If it's done under, the TP naturally curls toward you (away from the wall), allowing you to grab the end without touching the wall. If it's not curling enough for some reason, just spin the roll backwards slightly, and the end will fall across the front of the roll.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":185.0,"score_ratio":2.5555555556} {"post_id":"mrghwv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Toilet paper should be installed so that it unravels away from the wall, rather than next to the wall It feels better. Who wants to feel their hand scraping along the wall as they\u2019re trying to get toilet paper? Granted, it\u2019s not as bad as scratching your fingernails across a chalkboard, but it\u2019s close. It both feels bad and sounds bad for you and the people around you. It\u2019s cleaner. No matter how clean your walls are, it will always be cleaner to not touch them, thereby showing down the transfer of germs. Also, since your hand will likely be dirty, you will also be transferring germs from your hand to the wall, which will make the wall dirtier for the next visit. It\u2019s more convenient. If the toilet paper is away from the wall, you can just grab on to it and pull. But if it\u2019s sticking to the wall, you have to try to lift it from the wall (which is frustrating and makes horrible sounds), and then pull. And also since the toilet paper is rubbing along the wall, it can rip unexpectedly. Overall I just honestly don\u2019t understand why people do this. CMV","c_root_id_A":"gumjxdw","c_root_id_B":"gum163z","created_at_utc_A":1618507161,"created_at_utc_B":1618499037,"score_A":13,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The original patent application for perforated toilet paper rolls shows the roll being dispensed away from the wall. So, that is the way it was originally intended to be used.","human_ref_B":"If you have cats then often times they like pulling in toilet paper and if it's facing away from the wall it'll unroll but if it's facing toward the wall then it'll just spin","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8124.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444} {"post_id":"mrghwv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Toilet paper should be installed so that it unravels away from the wall, rather than next to the wall It feels better. Who wants to feel their hand scraping along the wall as they\u2019re trying to get toilet paper? Granted, it\u2019s not as bad as scratching your fingernails across a chalkboard, but it\u2019s close. It both feels bad and sounds bad for you and the people around you. It\u2019s cleaner. No matter how clean your walls are, it will always be cleaner to not touch them, thereby showing down the transfer of germs. Also, since your hand will likely be dirty, you will also be transferring germs from your hand to the wall, which will make the wall dirtier for the next visit. It\u2019s more convenient. If the toilet paper is away from the wall, you can just grab on to it and pull. But if it\u2019s sticking to the wall, you have to try to lift it from the wall (which is frustrating and makes horrible sounds), and then pull. And also since the toilet paper is rubbing along the wall, it can rip unexpectedly. Overall I just honestly don\u2019t understand why people do this. CMV","c_root_id_A":"gumjxdw","c_root_id_B":"gumbmpw","created_at_utc_A":1618507161,"created_at_utc_B":1618503573,"score_A":13,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The original patent application for perforated toilet paper rolls shows the roll being dispensed away from the wall. So, that is the way it was originally intended to be used.","human_ref_B":"My toilet roll holders installed in a terrible spot so I just sit it on the floor next to the loo \ud83d\ude05\ud83d\ude48 I think aesthetically it looks neater nearer the wall tho.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3588.0,"score_ratio":3.25} {"post_id":"s2exyp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: You do not need to embody the sexual\/romantic preferences you seek in other people. Examples: \\- when a short woman says she is more attracted to tall men, sometimes men will try rebuking with \"You're short too! What right do you have to be picky!\" as if to say you need to be tall to seek out a tall partner, or that she should still be attracted to shorter men because they are still a couple of inches taller than her. \\- when a man expresses that he is more attracted to women who trim or shave their body hair, sometimes women will respond with \"do YOU shave\/trim your body hair?\" as if to say that you need to shave your body to find it attractive when others do so. I can't really think of a good reason why you need to embody the traits you seek, unless you are acting like everyone *needs* to adhere to your preferences. I also feel like it's not uncommon to find other partners who are attracted to the way you are despite it being different from them, and vice versa. I am curious to see if folks disagree on this, as I often see people who express views like those in the examples I gave!","c_root_id_A":"hsesqph","c_root_id_B":"hse2h89","created_at_utc_A":1642027087,"created_at_utc_B":1642017264,"score_A":11,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"In theory this is true, the problem comes with how it plays out in practice. In my experience every guy that\u2019s said he prefers when women shave their body hair has gotten upset when I\u2019ve said I\u2019m not going to shave anymore frequently than I currently do. I\u2019ve always said they can either not date me or just deal with the fact that sometimes I won\u2019t match their preferences. Every man with this stated preference I\u2019ve encountered has been upset that I won\u2019t conform to it. At which point I have told them that I\u2019ll shave more often if they start shaving their armpits and genitals. Their refusal is usually when the discussion ends.","human_ref_B":">I can't really think of a good reason why you need to embody the traits you seek The main reason why people reply like that is that comment that they reply to comes off exactly as like everyone needs to adhere to their preferences. \"You're short too! What right do you have to be picky!\" is usually a rebuttal for someone who is short and stating something more \"If you are 5'9 swipe left\" not \"I prefer tall men\". There is also a cause when trait they seek needs constant work to be maintained (like your shaving example). It is a rebuttal to show that whet they seek is not a thing that is easy to maintain and takes work to uphold, while they seem to be ok not putting work into themselves. It can be a sign of entitlement and people are using those rebuttals to show it and make someone reconsider if they are reasonable. > also feel like it's not uncommon to find other partners who are attracted to the way you are despite it being different from them, and vice versa. Sure, but the context matters and undertone matters. Emphasis put on a trait that would make you seem like entitled or somehow hypocritical will result in people pointing that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9823.0,"score_ratio":2.2} {"post_id":"s2exyp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: You do not need to embody the sexual\/romantic preferences you seek in other people. Examples: \\- when a short woman says she is more attracted to tall men, sometimes men will try rebuking with \"You're short too! What right do you have to be picky!\" as if to say you need to be tall to seek out a tall partner, or that she should still be attracted to shorter men because they are still a couple of inches taller than her. \\- when a man expresses that he is more attracted to women who trim or shave their body hair, sometimes women will respond with \"do YOU shave\/trim your body hair?\" as if to say that you need to shave your body to find it attractive when others do so. I can't really think of a good reason why you need to embody the traits you seek, unless you are acting like everyone *needs* to adhere to your preferences. I also feel like it's not uncommon to find other partners who are attracted to the way you are despite it being different from them, and vice versa. I am curious to see if folks disagree on this, as I often see people who express views like those in the examples I gave!","c_root_id_A":"hsesqph","c_root_id_B":"hseeewt","created_at_utc_A":1642027087,"created_at_utc_B":1642021687,"score_A":11,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"In theory this is true, the problem comes with how it plays out in practice. In my experience every guy that\u2019s said he prefers when women shave their body hair has gotten upset when I\u2019ve said I\u2019m not going to shave anymore frequently than I currently do. I\u2019ve always said they can either not date me or just deal with the fact that sometimes I won\u2019t match their preferences. Every man with this stated preference I\u2019ve encountered has been upset that I won\u2019t conform to it. At which point I have told them that I\u2019ll shave more often if they start shaving their armpits and genitals. Their refusal is usually when the discussion ends.","human_ref_B":"Well how does your view work for say general physical fitness? I\u2019m relatively fit and so is my wife. We do things together like cycling, hiking, generally working out, and playing in little coed social sports leagues together. Would it have been OK for me to demand a fit wife if I was obese?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5400.0,"score_ratio":2.2} {"post_id":"9aq4m6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Prostitution (or escort, call it whatever you want) should be fully legal as long as no human traffic was involved and everybody consented Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe right now in many parts of Western nations, USA included, prostitution is illegal. Even escort is considered at best as semi-legal and can still often be shut down if government deems that sex is explicitly involved. ​ I believe the two main arguments for why this is so is because of human traffic, and health. For human traffic, i find this a poor argument because you don't ban prostitution simply because a part of prostitution is sponsored by human traffic. It's not fair to the rest of prostitution which does NOT involve human traffic. Analogy is like how you don't ban alcohol simply because some people abuse it. If human traffic is a problem, then fix that directly without making a blanket ban. ​ As for health argument, it is also a poor argument because by that logic, I can claim anything which leads to poor health should be banned. Should we ban HIV-people from having sex? Should we ban obese people from eating McDonalds? Government doesn't have a say in how people should live their lives, including risky behaviors. To ban it completely due to health reasons is ridiculous. ​ If I miss anything else, feel free to comment and i'll see if that can change my mind. ​ BTW - what would NOT change my mind is moral argument like \"oh it's a sin\" or \"it's morally bad to treat sex so casually\".","c_root_id_A":"e4x7y91","c_root_id_B":"e4x7luc","created_at_utc_A":1535385955,"created_at_utc_B":1535385642,"score_A":412,"score_B":113,"human_ref_A":"> If human traffic is a problem, then fix that directly without making a blanket ban. Well, that's kind of a tall order. Pretty sure if we could snap their fingers and do it, we would. Unfortunately, we can't. On top of that, the general argument that I know of is that legal prostitution has two detrimental effects on that goal. First, it increases demand for prostitution, making trafficking more lucrative because the supply of willing prostitutes appears to be \"inelastic\". Second, it makes it harder to root out trafficking, because its victims can effectively be hidden in plain sight.","human_ref_B":"Every study we do confirms one thing, legalization of prostitution direct correlates with an increase in sex trafficking. Knowing this fact, any argument in favour of legal prostitution has to accept that they are going to incentivize sex trafficking. That's just how the market works. Are you willing to accept that responsibility? https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986065","labels":1,"seconds_difference":313.0,"score_ratio":3.6460176991} {"post_id":"9aq4m6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Prostitution (or escort, call it whatever you want) should be fully legal as long as no human traffic was involved and everybody consented Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe right now in many parts of Western nations, USA included, prostitution is illegal. Even escort is considered at best as semi-legal and can still often be shut down if government deems that sex is explicitly involved. ​ I believe the two main arguments for why this is so is because of human traffic, and health. For human traffic, i find this a poor argument because you don't ban prostitution simply because a part of prostitution is sponsored by human traffic. It's not fair to the rest of prostitution which does NOT involve human traffic. Analogy is like how you don't ban alcohol simply because some people abuse it. If human traffic is a problem, then fix that directly without making a blanket ban. ​ As for health argument, it is also a poor argument because by that logic, I can claim anything which leads to poor health should be banned. Should we ban HIV-people from having sex? Should we ban obese people from eating McDonalds? Government doesn't have a say in how people should live their lives, including risky behaviors. To ban it completely due to health reasons is ridiculous. ​ If I miss anything else, feel free to comment and i'll see if that can change my mind. ​ BTW - what would NOT change my mind is moral argument like \"oh it's a sin\" or \"it's morally bad to treat sex so casually\".","c_root_id_A":"e4xkbib","c_root_id_B":"e4x7luc","created_at_utc_A":1535396777,"created_at_utc_B":1535385642,"score_A":234,"score_B":113,"human_ref_A":"So I think prostitution could maybe be legal in certain forms, but you're saying fully legal, so I'm going to talk about this wonderful book I read last year about this very issue. It's a book called \"Girls Like Us\" and I forget who the author is (Racheal something I think), but she runs an organization called GEMS in NY that helps girls get out of the sex business. These are not girls who are trafficked either. So I think the first thing to understand is what the industry is often like in the US right now. Yes, it is illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still huge. A lot of these girls are not taken from their homes in the middle of the night or anything like that. No, instead they prey on girls who just don't have homes or much (if any) adult support. These are people who don't have parents who are there or around much, who can show them what healthy love is supposed to be. So then these, usually, men come over and start being nice to them, helping them out, telling them they love them, etc. They don't do anything crazy nice usually, but these girls don't have any metric for what love is supposed to be, that's why they were chosen. But then the abuse starts. They start telling them they need to have sex with other people if they love the man, beating them when they don't perform well, and a bunch of little tricks to turn the girls against each other like playing favorites and rewarding them for ratting on each other, etc. The thing is, they often don't want to leave, they just don't know much better and are taught to think their abusers really do love them. GEMS often has to literally monitor these girls to make sure they don't go back. There's a lot of psychology that goes into why this is the case, and I don't think I've done a great job explaining all of it, but if I keep going this will turn into a short novel real quick. If you want to really understand it, read the book, it's short and a great read. So the TL;DR is that the sex industry now is often full of girls who are not trafficked, but who are manipulated and abused into thinking they have to work in the business even if it's not what they actually want. Now, this isn't always the case I'm sure. There are women who really do enjoy being prostitutes I'm sure, I've read articles about them, but those that enjoy it don't suddenly make the abuse go away. Now, you might think \"well, if we make it legal, can't we help stop that abuse by controlling the industry a bit more?\" And that would be a good point, but I'd say let's look at the other sex industry: porn. It is legal, and there are people who do like it, but there's also a lot of sketchy stuff that goes on. There was an ask Reddit a while ago about the dark side of different industries, and one of the big ones was the porn industry. People are pressured into going further and further, pushed to keep doing things they don't want or aren't comfortable with. Things that a lot people would consider rape happen and just aren't talked about, and trying to talk about it can get you blacklisted. So, since everyone likes porn, a lot of this just goes unnoticed. They might not be getting beaten or locked up, but it's certainly not always great either. So I don't think making it legal necessarily solves the problem of abuse becuase, even if there's laws that protect your boundaries, the powers that be can and will still find ways to manipulate people into doing things they don't want because their body is the commodity, and people want to get the most use possible out of a commodity they're paying for. I'm typing this on my phone, so I don't want to close it to try and find more sources since I'll lose it all, but again, if you want a real look into the sex industry, read \"Girls Like Us\". I had to read it for a class, and I didn't really want to at first because I'm a guy and it didn't really seem like an issue close to home for me, but I'm very glad I did. It opened my eyes a lot, and not just about the sex industry itself, but just to the concept of contextualizing the situations in which people make bad decisions. I also read it in one night because the deadline for reading it snuck up on me, so it's a short read and one you won't regret.","human_ref_B":"Every study we do confirms one thing, legalization of prostitution direct correlates with an increase in sex trafficking. Knowing this fact, any argument in favour of legal prostitution has to accept that they are going to incentivize sex trafficking. That's just how the market works. Are you willing to accept that responsibility? https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986065","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11135.0,"score_ratio":2.0707964602} {"post_id":"9aq4m6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Prostitution (or escort, call it whatever you want) should be fully legal as long as no human traffic was involved and everybody consented Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe right now in many parts of Western nations, USA included, prostitution is illegal. Even escort is considered at best as semi-legal and can still often be shut down if government deems that sex is explicitly involved. ​ I believe the two main arguments for why this is so is because of human traffic, and health. For human traffic, i find this a poor argument because you don't ban prostitution simply because a part of prostitution is sponsored by human traffic. It's not fair to the rest of prostitution which does NOT involve human traffic. Analogy is like how you don't ban alcohol simply because some people abuse it. If human traffic is a problem, then fix that directly without making a blanket ban. ​ As for health argument, it is also a poor argument because by that logic, I can claim anything which leads to poor health should be banned. Should we ban HIV-people from having sex? Should we ban obese people from eating McDonalds? Government doesn't have a say in how people should live their lives, including risky behaviors. To ban it completely due to health reasons is ridiculous. ​ If I miss anything else, feel free to comment and i'll see if that can change my mind. ​ BTW - what would NOT change my mind is moral argument like \"oh it's a sin\" or \"it's morally bad to treat sex so casually\".","c_root_id_A":"e4xgc67","c_root_id_B":"e4xkbib","created_at_utc_A":1535393208,"created_at_utc_B":1535396777,"score_A":17,"score_B":234,"human_ref_A":"I believe the reasons are more to protect against exploitation. You might say, if a prostitute freely chooses to sell their body who is being exploited. You might be right, but same argument could then be made for things like minimum wage laws. If I'm willing to work for 2.25$ an hour how am I being exploited and who is the government to tell me I can't?","human_ref_B":"So I think prostitution could maybe be legal in certain forms, but you're saying fully legal, so I'm going to talk about this wonderful book I read last year about this very issue. It's a book called \"Girls Like Us\" and I forget who the author is (Racheal something I think), but she runs an organization called GEMS in NY that helps girls get out of the sex business. These are not girls who are trafficked either. So I think the first thing to understand is what the industry is often like in the US right now. Yes, it is illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still huge. A lot of these girls are not taken from their homes in the middle of the night or anything like that. No, instead they prey on girls who just don't have homes or much (if any) adult support. These are people who don't have parents who are there or around much, who can show them what healthy love is supposed to be. So then these, usually, men come over and start being nice to them, helping them out, telling them they love them, etc. They don't do anything crazy nice usually, but these girls don't have any metric for what love is supposed to be, that's why they were chosen. But then the abuse starts. They start telling them they need to have sex with other people if they love the man, beating them when they don't perform well, and a bunch of little tricks to turn the girls against each other like playing favorites and rewarding them for ratting on each other, etc. The thing is, they often don't want to leave, they just don't know much better and are taught to think their abusers really do love them. GEMS often has to literally monitor these girls to make sure they don't go back. There's a lot of psychology that goes into why this is the case, and I don't think I've done a great job explaining all of it, but if I keep going this will turn into a short novel real quick. If you want to really understand it, read the book, it's short and a great read. So the TL;DR is that the sex industry now is often full of girls who are not trafficked, but who are manipulated and abused into thinking they have to work in the business even if it's not what they actually want. Now, this isn't always the case I'm sure. There are women who really do enjoy being prostitutes I'm sure, I've read articles about them, but those that enjoy it don't suddenly make the abuse go away. Now, you might think \"well, if we make it legal, can't we help stop that abuse by controlling the industry a bit more?\" And that would be a good point, but I'd say let's look at the other sex industry: porn. It is legal, and there are people who do like it, but there's also a lot of sketchy stuff that goes on. There was an ask Reddit a while ago about the dark side of different industries, and one of the big ones was the porn industry. People are pressured into going further and further, pushed to keep doing things they don't want or aren't comfortable with. Things that a lot people would consider rape happen and just aren't talked about, and trying to talk about it can get you blacklisted. So, since everyone likes porn, a lot of this just goes unnoticed. They might not be getting beaten or locked up, but it's certainly not always great either. So I don't think making it legal necessarily solves the problem of abuse becuase, even if there's laws that protect your boundaries, the powers that be can and will still find ways to manipulate people into doing things they don't want because their body is the commodity, and people want to get the most use possible out of a commodity they're paying for. I'm typing this on my phone, so I don't want to close it to try and find more sources since I'll lose it all, but again, if you want a real look into the sex industry, read \"Girls Like Us\". I had to read it for a class, and I didn't really want to at first because I'm a guy and it didn't really seem like an issue close to home for me, but I'm very glad I did. It opened my eyes a lot, and not just about the sex industry itself, but just to the concept of contextualizing the situations in which people make bad decisions. I also read it in one night because the deadline for reading it snuck up on me, so it's a short read and one you won't regret.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3569.0,"score_ratio":13.7647058824} {"post_id":"9aq4m6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Prostitution (or escort, call it whatever you want) should be fully legal as long as no human traffic was involved and everybody consented Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe right now in many parts of Western nations, USA included, prostitution is illegal. Even escort is considered at best as semi-legal and can still often be shut down if government deems that sex is explicitly involved. ​ I believe the two main arguments for why this is so is because of human traffic, and health. For human traffic, i find this a poor argument because you don't ban prostitution simply because a part of prostitution is sponsored by human traffic. It's not fair to the rest of prostitution which does NOT involve human traffic. Analogy is like how you don't ban alcohol simply because some people abuse it. If human traffic is a problem, then fix that directly without making a blanket ban. ​ As for health argument, it is also a poor argument because by that logic, I can claim anything which leads to poor health should be banned. Should we ban HIV-people from having sex? Should we ban obese people from eating McDonalds? Government doesn't have a say in how people should live their lives, including risky behaviors. To ban it completely due to health reasons is ridiculous. ​ If I miss anything else, feel free to comment and i'll see if that can change my mind. ​ BTW - what would NOT change my mind is moral argument like \"oh it's a sin\" or \"it's morally bad to treat sex so casually\".","c_root_id_A":"e4xxtel","c_root_id_B":"e4xgc67","created_at_utc_A":1535408462,"created_at_utc_B":1535393208,"score_A":39,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Somebody could have written these responses already, I was too anxious to type up a response to finish reading through the previous comments. Sorry if this is the case. I currently work for an anti-human trafficking organization. I\u2019ve heard a lot of trafficking victims\u2019 stories, met child victims that we\u2019ve rescued and are rehabilitating, and we have teams on the ground overseas in areas with the highest happenings of sex trafficking. It\u2019s a much deeper issue than it seems and it\u2019s a spiderweb of problems. I know you directly stated \u201cif no human trafficking is involved and everybody consented,\u201d but even that has a headache of problems. I also know you\u2019re talking about legalization in the United States, but stick with me, it\u2019s all connected. Sex trafficking is the second most lucrative criminal industry worldwide. If it\u2019s that lucrative, that means the the demand is so high it\u2019s basically out of our comprehension. This may be the biggest root that should be targeted to put an end to trafficking. The argument I\u2019m going to make is that prostitution encourages the demand for trafficking. We live in a world where there are destinations for sex tourism, like the red lights districts in Thailand, for example. It\u2019s a tourist destination that has an estimated 27,000 visitors per day and is one of the largest prostitution \u201cgigs\u201d in the world. On the surface, if your morality tells you that legal prostitution is A-OK, then that doesn\u2019t seem alarming. People bring their families, walk around and look at the girls, have fun and enjoy themselves as if it\u2019s all normal. However, most of these brothels and bars have an underground trafficking ring, per say, where children, teenagers, and women are trapped and sold for nonconsensual sex constantly. Obviously it\u2019s a well-hidden operation, but it\u2019s even bigger than reports say it is. There is so much we don\u2019t know. There are children, both boys and girls, trapped behind locked doors being raped for somebody else\u2019s financial gain. I think that you, OP, obviously know this is NOT okay and that it is alarming. However, amongst those 27,000 people visiting per day, a chunk of them DO think it\u2019s okay and they partake. They feed the demand. **They\u2019ve dehumanized the trafficking victims**; they no longer see the child, the unconsenting woman, the 7 year old boy they\u2019re raping as a person. They view their victim as a product that they have purchased. THIS is the problem, and I\u2019d argue that legal prostitution encourages it. If we legalize prostitution in the United States, like places in Thailand have, underground trafficking operations WILL appear. They\u2019re already here in the US, sadly, but they\u2019ll have a wider demand and expand. Legal prostitution is a foot in the door of trafficking. It\u2019s a step in that direction. The more we do to prevent even taking another step in that direction here in our own country, the better chance we have of killing the normalization of sex and dehumanization. We should avoid viewing people\u2019s bodies as a product at all cost. The second we cross that threshold, it\u2019s a quick descent into the illegal and dark operations of human trafficking. In my opinion, the dangers and risks of legalizing prostitution definitely outweigh the pros. The key to killing the demand is to make these victims human again, slashing the demand for trafficking, resulting in a decrease in \u201csupply\u201d of trafficking victims--and this has to include keeping prostitution illegal. I hate making an economics comparison, but it\u2019s the clearest visual of the problem. On the point of government-regulated prostitution.. Do we really trust our government to stay squeaky clean while holding everyone accountable? That\u2019s a huge task for a large, multitasking entity, I doubt we can safely rely on that. Not to mention the amount of money involved with the legalization of that industry.. the government is represented by people, and money is one of the best motivators, even to motivate somebody to look the other way. Again, another risk that will likely spike the demand for more trafficking victims. On the topic of normalizing sex, pornography is another dangerous issue that influences sex trafficking. I\u2019ll dive into if anybody wants to here my two cents, but for now I\u2019m going to leave it at that.. **Tl;dr - Prostitution increases interest in solicited sex (demand), increasing profits for \\*cheaper\\* solicited sex, leading to spikes in sex trafficking (supply). Everything is connected.**","human_ref_B":"I believe the reasons are more to protect against exploitation. You might say, if a prostitute freely chooses to sell their body who is being exploited. You might be right, but same argument could then be made for things like minimum wage laws. If I'm willing to work for 2.25$ an hour how am I being exploited and who is the government to tell me I can't?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15254.0,"score_ratio":2.2941176471} {"post_id":"9aq4m6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Prostitution (or escort, call it whatever you want) should be fully legal as long as no human traffic was involved and everybody consented Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe right now in many parts of Western nations, USA included, prostitution is illegal. Even escort is considered at best as semi-legal and can still often be shut down if government deems that sex is explicitly involved. ​ I believe the two main arguments for why this is so is because of human traffic, and health. For human traffic, i find this a poor argument because you don't ban prostitution simply because a part of prostitution is sponsored by human traffic. It's not fair to the rest of prostitution which does NOT involve human traffic. Analogy is like how you don't ban alcohol simply because some people abuse it. If human traffic is a problem, then fix that directly without making a blanket ban. ​ As for health argument, it is also a poor argument because by that logic, I can claim anything which leads to poor health should be banned. Should we ban HIV-people from having sex? Should we ban obese people from eating McDonalds? Government doesn't have a say in how people should live their lives, including risky behaviors. To ban it completely due to health reasons is ridiculous. ​ If I miss anything else, feel free to comment and i'll see if that can change my mind. ​ BTW - what would NOT change my mind is moral argument like \"oh it's a sin\" or \"it's morally bad to treat sex so casually\".","c_root_id_A":"e4xxtel","c_root_id_B":"e4xo7i7","created_at_utc_A":1535408462,"created_at_utc_B":1535400027,"score_A":39,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Somebody could have written these responses already, I was too anxious to type up a response to finish reading through the previous comments. Sorry if this is the case. I currently work for an anti-human trafficking organization. I\u2019ve heard a lot of trafficking victims\u2019 stories, met child victims that we\u2019ve rescued and are rehabilitating, and we have teams on the ground overseas in areas with the highest happenings of sex trafficking. It\u2019s a much deeper issue than it seems and it\u2019s a spiderweb of problems. I know you directly stated \u201cif no human trafficking is involved and everybody consented,\u201d but even that has a headache of problems. I also know you\u2019re talking about legalization in the United States, but stick with me, it\u2019s all connected. Sex trafficking is the second most lucrative criminal industry worldwide. If it\u2019s that lucrative, that means the the demand is so high it\u2019s basically out of our comprehension. This may be the biggest root that should be targeted to put an end to trafficking. The argument I\u2019m going to make is that prostitution encourages the demand for trafficking. We live in a world where there are destinations for sex tourism, like the red lights districts in Thailand, for example. It\u2019s a tourist destination that has an estimated 27,000 visitors per day and is one of the largest prostitution \u201cgigs\u201d in the world. On the surface, if your morality tells you that legal prostitution is A-OK, then that doesn\u2019t seem alarming. People bring their families, walk around and look at the girls, have fun and enjoy themselves as if it\u2019s all normal. However, most of these brothels and bars have an underground trafficking ring, per say, where children, teenagers, and women are trapped and sold for nonconsensual sex constantly. Obviously it\u2019s a well-hidden operation, but it\u2019s even bigger than reports say it is. There is so much we don\u2019t know. There are children, both boys and girls, trapped behind locked doors being raped for somebody else\u2019s financial gain. I think that you, OP, obviously know this is NOT okay and that it is alarming. However, amongst those 27,000 people visiting per day, a chunk of them DO think it\u2019s okay and they partake. They feed the demand. **They\u2019ve dehumanized the trafficking victims**; they no longer see the child, the unconsenting woman, the 7 year old boy they\u2019re raping as a person. They view their victim as a product that they have purchased. THIS is the problem, and I\u2019d argue that legal prostitution encourages it. If we legalize prostitution in the United States, like places in Thailand have, underground trafficking operations WILL appear. They\u2019re already here in the US, sadly, but they\u2019ll have a wider demand and expand. Legal prostitution is a foot in the door of trafficking. It\u2019s a step in that direction. The more we do to prevent even taking another step in that direction here in our own country, the better chance we have of killing the normalization of sex and dehumanization. We should avoid viewing people\u2019s bodies as a product at all cost. The second we cross that threshold, it\u2019s a quick descent into the illegal and dark operations of human trafficking. In my opinion, the dangers and risks of legalizing prostitution definitely outweigh the pros. The key to killing the demand is to make these victims human again, slashing the demand for trafficking, resulting in a decrease in \u201csupply\u201d of trafficking victims--and this has to include keeping prostitution illegal. I hate making an economics comparison, but it\u2019s the clearest visual of the problem. On the point of government-regulated prostitution.. Do we really trust our government to stay squeaky clean while holding everyone accountable? That\u2019s a huge task for a large, multitasking entity, I doubt we can safely rely on that. Not to mention the amount of money involved with the legalization of that industry.. the government is represented by people, and money is one of the best motivators, even to motivate somebody to look the other way. Again, another risk that will likely spike the demand for more trafficking victims. On the topic of normalizing sex, pornography is another dangerous issue that influences sex trafficking. I\u2019ll dive into if anybody wants to here my two cents, but for now I\u2019m going to leave it at that.. **Tl;dr - Prostitution increases interest in solicited sex (demand), increasing profits for \\*cheaper\\* solicited sex, leading to spikes in sex trafficking (supply). Everything is connected.**","human_ref_B":"In The Netherlands it s legal for some time now. I believe it didn't do much good for lowering trafficking.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8435.0,"score_ratio":3.9} {"post_id":"9aq4m6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Prostitution (or escort, call it whatever you want) should be fully legal as long as no human traffic was involved and everybody consented Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe right now in many parts of Western nations, USA included, prostitution is illegal. Even escort is considered at best as semi-legal and can still often be shut down if government deems that sex is explicitly involved. ​ I believe the two main arguments for why this is so is because of human traffic, and health. For human traffic, i find this a poor argument because you don't ban prostitution simply because a part of prostitution is sponsored by human traffic. It's not fair to the rest of prostitution which does NOT involve human traffic. Analogy is like how you don't ban alcohol simply because some people abuse it. If human traffic is a problem, then fix that directly without making a blanket ban. ​ As for health argument, it is also a poor argument because by that logic, I can claim anything which leads to poor health should be banned. Should we ban HIV-people from having sex? Should we ban obese people from eating McDonalds? Government doesn't have a say in how people should live their lives, including risky behaviors. To ban it completely due to health reasons is ridiculous. ​ If I miss anything else, feel free to comment and i'll see if that can change my mind. ​ BTW - what would NOT change my mind is moral argument like \"oh it's a sin\" or \"it's morally bad to treat sex so casually\".","c_root_id_A":"e4xxtel","c_root_id_B":"e4xlwys","created_at_utc_A":1535408462,"created_at_utc_B":1535398116,"score_A":39,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Somebody could have written these responses already, I was too anxious to type up a response to finish reading through the previous comments. Sorry if this is the case. I currently work for an anti-human trafficking organization. I\u2019ve heard a lot of trafficking victims\u2019 stories, met child victims that we\u2019ve rescued and are rehabilitating, and we have teams on the ground overseas in areas with the highest happenings of sex trafficking. It\u2019s a much deeper issue than it seems and it\u2019s a spiderweb of problems. I know you directly stated \u201cif no human trafficking is involved and everybody consented,\u201d but even that has a headache of problems. I also know you\u2019re talking about legalization in the United States, but stick with me, it\u2019s all connected. Sex trafficking is the second most lucrative criminal industry worldwide. If it\u2019s that lucrative, that means the the demand is so high it\u2019s basically out of our comprehension. This may be the biggest root that should be targeted to put an end to trafficking. The argument I\u2019m going to make is that prostitution encourages the demand for trafficking. We live in a world where there are destinations for sex tourism, like the red lights districts in Thailand, for example. It\u2019s a tourist destination that has an estimated 27,000 visitors per day and is one of the largest prostitution \u201cgigs\u201d in the world. On the surface, if your morality tells you that legal prostitution is A-OK, then that doesn\u2019t seem alarming. People bring their families, walk around and look at the girls, have fun and enjoy themselves as if it\u2019s all normal. However, most of these brothels and bars have an underground trafficking ring, per say, where children, teenagers, and women are trapped and sold for nonconsensual sex constantly. Obviously it\u2019s a well-hidden operation, but it\u2019s even bigger than reports say it is. There is so much we don\u2019t know. There are children, both boys and girls, trapped behind locked doors being raped for somebody else\u2019s financial gain. I think that you, OP, obviously know this is NOT okay and that it is alarming. However, amongst those 27,000 people visiting per day, a chunk of them DO think it\u2019s okay and they partake. They feed the demand. **They\u2019ve dehumanized the trafficking victims**; they no longer see the child, the unconsenting woman, the 7 year old boy they\u2019re raping as a person. They view their victim as a product that they have purchased. THIS is the problem, and I\u2019d argue that legal prostitution encourages it. If we legalize prostitution in the United States, like places in Thailand have, underground trafficking operations WILL appear. They\u2019re already here in the US, sadly, but they\u2019ll have a wider demand and expand. Legal prostitution is a foot in the door of trafficking. It\u2019s a step in that direction. The more we do to prevent even taking another step in that direction here in our own country, the better chance we have of killing the normalization of sex and dehumanization. We should avoid viewing people\u2019s bodies as a product at all cost. The second we cross that threshold, it\u2019s a quick descent into the illegal and dark operations of human trafficking. In my opinion, the dangers and risks of legalizing prostitution definitely outweigh the pros. The key to killing the demand is to make these victims human again, slashing the demand for trafficking, resulting in a decrease in \u201csupply\u201d of trafficking victims--and this has to include keeping prostitution illegal. I hate making an economics comparison, but it\u2019s the clearest visual of the problem. On the point of government-regulated prostitution.. Do we really trust our government to stay squeaky clean while holding everyone accountable? That\u2019s a huge task for a large, multitasking entity, I doubt we can safely rely on that. Not to mention the amount of money involved with the legalization of that industry.. the government is represented by people, and money is one of the best motivators, even to motivate somebody to look the other way. Again, another risk that will likely spike the demand for more trafficking victims. On the topic of normalizing sex, pornography is another dangerous issue that influences sex trafficking. I\u2019ll dive into if anybody wants to here my two cents, but for now I\u2019m going to leave it at that.. **Tl;dr - Prostitution increases interest in solicited sex (demand), increasing profits for \\*cheaper\\* solicited sex, leading to spikes in sex trafficking (supply). Everything is connected.**","human_ref_B":"Consent is tricky if you\u2019re a behaviorist\/ don\u2019t believe in free will. Prostitution is a muddy profession. Most people have some sort of intimacy attachment to sex. If that is missing, it might point to abuse or drugs. So now you have a quandary. If the prostitute was not high or suffering the affects of abuse, would they make the same choices. Out environment shapes our lives. Sometimes negatively and our behavior reflects that. With help, would there be regret?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10346.0,"score_ratio":5.5714285714} {"post_id":"9aq4m6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"CMV: Prostitution (or escort, call it whatever you want) should be fully legal as long as no human traffic was involved and everybody consented Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe right now in many parts of Western nations, USA included, prostitution is illegal. Even escort is considered at best as semi-legal and can still often be shut down if government deems that sex is explicitly involved. ​ I believe the two main arguments for why this is so is because of human traffic, and health. For human traffic, i find this a poor argument because you don't ban prostitution simply because a part of prostitution is sponsored by human traffic. It's not fair to the rest of prostitution which does NOT involve human traffic. Analogy is like how you don't ban alcohol simply because some people abuse it. If human traffic is a problem, then fix that directly without making a blanket ban. ​ As for health argument, it is also a poor argument because by that logic, I can claim anything which leads to poor health should be banned. Should we ban HIV-people from having sex? Should we ban obese people from eating McDonalds? Government doesn't have a say in how people should live their lives, including risky behaviors. To ban it completely due to health reasons is ridiculous. ​ If I miss anything else, feel free to comment and i'll see if that can change my mind. ​ BTW - what would NOT change my mind is moral argument like \"oh it's a sin\" or \"it's morally bad to treat sex so casually\".","c_root_id_A":"e4xo7i7","c_root_id_B":"e4xlwys","created_at_utc_A":1535400027,"created_at_utc_B":1535398116,"score_A":10,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"In The Netherlands it s legal for some time now. I believe it didn't do much good for lowering trafficking.","human_ref_B":"Consent is tricky if you\u2019re a behaviorist\/ don\u2019t believe in free will. Prostitution is a muddy profession. Most people have some sort of intimacy attachment to sex. If that is missing, it might point to abuse or drugs. So now you have a quandary. If the prostitute was not high or suffering the affects of abuse, would they make the same choices. Out environment shapes our lives. Sometimes negatively and our behavior reflects that. With help, would there be regret?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1911.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286} {"post_id":"55a3bd","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Trump would be a disaster, Hillary is our only option, third-party \u201cprotest\u201d votes are indefensible, but I should cast a protest vote because I live in a state where my vote doesn\u2019t matter. Let me start by saying I think we need to elect Hillary Clinton. I am no fan of Clinton but I know her to be the lesser of two inevitable evils. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are not legitimate options and they present a real spoiler threat to Hillary\u2019s chances. We live under a plurality-rule, first past the post electoral system that invariably marginalizes third parties. I am not a political scientist or a statistician, but I understand Duverger\u2019s Law and the mechanisms of the Electoral College well enough to know we will not see viable third-party presidential candidates unless we fundamentally change how votes are counted. That said, I live in Oregon. Oregon has gone blue in every election since Reagan\u2019s victory in 1984. It is an overwhelmingly safe bet that my state\u2019s 7 electoral votes will belong to Hillary Clinton. Oregon is, effectively, sitting this one out, along with 40 other states that have voted for the same party in at least four consecutive presidential elections. My vote will be statistically irrelevant. The only reason to vote at all is to participate on purely ideological grounds. I therefore think the most logical thing to do is to vote third-party to register my discontent. If I lived in a swing state, I would find this conclusion wholly untenable. I truly believe we have only two options here and that one option is decidedly less dangerous than the other. That said, I don\u2019t think any critically-minded person can be satisfied with the two major parties\u2019 nominees and that it is up to those of us who live in \u201csafe bet\u201d states to illustrate our displeasure by voting third-party. My vote will not change the outcome of the election but it might serve to remind the country that no one is happy with either choice. My role in the election has been reduced to a purely rhetorical exercise, and I believe the best way for me to participate is to cast a \u201cprotest\u201d vote. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d88vry0","c_root_id_B":"d88v9ni","created_at_utc_A":1475273535,"created_at_utc_B":1475272743,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I see two views here: (1) If you are in a competitive state, then you ought to vote for Clinton over Trump and (2) If you are not in a competitive state, then you should vote for a third party as a protest. The first view is widely discussed and not that interesting, in my view, compared with the 2nd. So I'll try to change your view on (2). First, voting for a third party in the **presidential election** seems entirely (or at least mostly) disconnected from registering your distaste for the electoral college, first-past-the-post voting, or most plausible reasons for voting for one candidate over another in the presidential election. If you are arguing that voting for a third party is obligatory (rather than merely permissible) there is a gaping hole in why the \"protest vote\" for a third party would actually address your concerns. Also, and as a couple other responses have pointed out, if enough people are convinced by your argument - paradoxically - you get the bad result of turning Oregon into a Trump win or a competitive election. Alternatively - you could protest the electoral college\/fptp elections by doing that directly. Get Oregon on board with the NPVIC and the electoral college is that much closer to ineffective. How does voting for candidates who just happen to be from alternate parties do anything to help your stated goals? Why is voting for them either necessary or sufficient for getting what you said you wanted. I just don't see the connection. The best I can interpret is that if you do vote for Clinton, that tacitly\/explicitly endorses the *status quo*. I don't see that at all. Vote for Clinton and RUN as an alternate candidate in a winnable election and actually show that (for instance) the Green party is a legitimate alternative locally. *Side note: this is why I think the Green party is a joke - if you can't win (and do something!) in a significant city election or a congressional seat what possible reason is there to roll the dice on a green party administration for the most powerful office in the world?* Build a party with like minded people at a smaller level before addressing problems with American politics at the Presidential level. There are two separate responses to why (2) fails. First - you don't have any good reason to vote for a third party in order to accomplish your stated goals, and second, that there are more direct and effective strategies for addressing the problems in the political system that you identify.","human_ref_B":"I live in Florida and plan to vote for Gary Johnson. If Gary Johnson gets to 5% support, the Libertarian Party gets federal funding for the next election. Also, any significant level of support will only help the Libertarian Party seem legitimate next year. So its not entirely throw away. Also, there is basically zero I find intriguing about Hillary Clinton and a few things I find intriguing about Trump, although yes a failure of checks-and-balances could be dangerous. I don't think I can vote for someone I entirely disagree with just because they are the lesser of two evils. I believe a growing central government is also a very dangerous thing. I can't really weigh that against the dangers Trump poses.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":792.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42utot","c_root_id_B":"i4317nw","created_at_utc_A":1649536536,"created_at_utc_B":1649539335,"score_A":4,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":">Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003 Well, it\u2019s really unfortunate that we don\u2019t have a parallel Ba\u2019athist dictatorship in the Middle East that the US left alone, so we can see how that turned out. Oh wait, there is one. >a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. The theory was, better our dictators, that could be brought to democracies, rather than their dictators, which could not. And that turned out to be true.","human_ref_B":"You have pointed out some (arguably) bad examples of US interventionism, but there are good ones too. * The US is almost solely responsible for the existence of South Korea as a nation. * The US Navy has sailed through the Taiwan Strait on several ocassions since the 1950s, deterring Chinese aggression. * The US led the effort to liberate Kuwait after it was unjustifiably invaded by Iraq in the First Gulf War. * The US invaded Grenada in 1983, which was so popular among its people that they celebrate Thanksgiving on the anniversary source * The US invaded Panama in 1990 to depose an actual drug lord and CBS poll found that 92% of Panamanians supported the invasion source * From 1993 to 1995 the US led the effort to create a no-fly zone over Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing by Serbia source * In 1994 the US invaded Haiti to restore its democratically elected leader after he was overthrown in a military coup source EDIT: minor typo","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2799.0,"score_ratio":6.25} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42m890","c_root_id_B":"i4317nw","created_at_utc_A":1649532790,"created_at_utc_B":1649539335,"score_A":3,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"This seems to me to be based on a common fallacy that administrations such as those that run the US have only one motive , one intent rather than complex groups of them some within individuals involved, some between individuals involved. Countries can act both because they think it will be of benefit *and* because they think they might bring others benefit. Much if what was done during the Cold War was done to prevent the growth of Soviet power. It might have been selfish, done badly, even been self-defeating but the motive , bearing in mind the horrors perpetrated by the Soviet Union necessarily a totally wrong motive. The recent interventions have been somewhat different. I think there was ( as at least one motive) a genuine sense that regime change could remove a seriously unpleasant regime and be a test bed for a capitalist \/democratic nation state in the Middle East , as well as a fear of WMDs getting into terrorist hands after 9\/11 involved in the decision to go to war in Iraq. And despite the horrors unleashed , I wonder whether now the population would choose to go back if they could - I don\u2019t know. Again in Libya one motive was that the regime was about to crush what looked like an Arab spring type rebellion as had been done previously. As a country with the power to intervene and witnessing a brutal dictatorship about to destroy a rebel city - are we right to just let it happen? Of course we now know that intervention ( especially with little thought to afterwards) can cause as much problems as it attempted to solve. But that doesn\u2019t mean that nonintervention isn\u2019t a difficult moral decision sometimes. I mean what do you think of the intervention in what was Yugoslavia to stop genocide , or the intervention with military supplies in Ukraine? Don\u2019t get me wrong. I\u2019m not suggesting that the US may not also have \u2018bad\u2019 motives, nor suggesting they shouldn\u2019t have made less interventions - just saying it\u2019s not always uncomplicated. And it\u2019s become obvious that democracy isn\u2019t something that can be imposed externally very easily - still not easy to perhaps leave democratic rebellions to be slaughtered , and unfortunately sometimes the rebels turn out to be as bad as the regime they rebel against.","human_ref_B":"You have pointed out some (arguably) bad examples of US interventionism, but there are good ones too. * The US is almost solely responsible for the existence of South Korea as a nation. * The US Navy has sailed through the Taiwan Strait on several ocassions since the 1950s, deterring Chinese aggression. * The US led the effort to liberate Kuwait after it was unjustifiably invaded by Iraq in the First Gulf War. * The US invaded Grenada in 1983, which was so popular among its people that they celebrate Thanksgiving on the anniversary source * The US invaded Panama in 1990 to depose an actual drug lord and CBS poll found that 92% of Panamanians supported the invasion source * From 1993 to 1995 the US led the effort to create a no-fly zone over Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing by Serbia source * In 1994 the US invaded Haiti to restore its democratically elected leader after he was overthrown in a military coup source EDIT: minor typo","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6545.0,"score_ratio":8.3333333333} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i4317nw","c_root_id_B":"i42lp00","created_at_utc_A":1649539335,"created_at_utc_B":1649532562,"score_A":25,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You have pointed out some (arguably) bad examples of US interventionism, but there are good ones too. * The US is almost solely responsible for the existence of South Korea as a nation. * The US Navy has sailed through the Taiwan Strait on several ocassions since the 1950s, deterring Chinese aggression. * The US led the effort to liberate Kuwait after it was unjustifiably invaded by Iraq in the First Gulf War. * The US invaded Grenada in 1983, which was so popular among its people that they celebrate Thanksgiving on the anniversary source * The US invaded Panama in 1990 to depose an actual drug lord and CBS poll found that 92% of Panamanians supported the invasion source * From 1993 to 1995 the US led the effort to create a no-fly zone over Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing by Serbia source * In 1994 the US invaded Haiti to restore its democratically elected leader after he was overthrown in a military coup source EDIT: minor typo","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t care to dispute the overall point of this CMV, but there are two very different types of interventions that you lump together here. When the US act on the authority of the UN Security Council (or NATO, as it usually would be in those cases), we have a very different intervention than when the US decides to do something on their own. One such example is Libya in 2011. Whether Libya is better off because of the intervention or not I\u2019m not qualified to comment, but the fact that it was the international community who decided an intervention was needed makes me judge it very differently from Iraq in 2003, when the US (and some other countries) on their own decided it would be for the best if they intervened.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6773.0,"score_ratio":12.5} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i4317nw","c_root_id_B":"i42nkql","created_at_utc_A":1649539335,"created_at_utc_B":1649533365,"score_A":25,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You have pointed out some (arguably) bad examples of US interventionism, but there are good ones too. * The US is almost solely responsible for the existence of South Korea as a nation. * The US Navy has sailed through the Taiwan Strait on several ocassions since the 1950s, deterring Chinese aggression. * The US led the effort to liberate Kuwait after it was unjustifiably invaded by Iraq in the First Gulf War. * The US invaded Grenada in 1983, which was so popular among its people that they celebrate Thanksgiving on the anniversary source * The US invaded Panama in 1990 to depose an actual drug lord and CBS poll found that 92% of Panamanians supported the invasion source * From 1993 to 1995 the US led the effort to create a no-fly zone over Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing by Serbia source * In 1994 the US invaded Haiti to restore its democratically elected leader after he was overthrown in a military coup source EDIT: minor typo","human_ref_B":"Indeed, we can't have it both ways. Ukraine is in trouble and the guys invading are just killing everybody and blowing everything up. So we can't stand back and do nothing. We suck, but we can help sometimes too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5970.0,"score_ratio":12.5} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42t387","c_root_id_B":"i4317nw","created_at_utc_A":1649535775,"created_at_utc_B":1649539335,"score_A":2,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"The world's policeman has never been a good actor. The US is as close as we've come though. I was once at a hostel where British, Dutch, & Spanish guys were making a similar point. I reminded to look at their own houses. Sure we suck at being the world's cop & should do way less of it but compared to literally every other country that's ever claimed the role... We're like the police chief who brags about his cops only killing 100 people that year when it was 500 before. It's not something to brag about but, he was at least closer to success.","human_ref_B":"You have pointed out some (arguably) bad examples of US interventionism, but there are good ones too. * The US is almost solely responsible for the existence of South Korea as a nation. * The US Navy has sailed through the Taiwan Strait on several ocassions since the 1950s, deterring Chinese aggression. * The US led the effort to liberate Kuwait after it was unjustifiably invaded by Iraq in the First Gulf War. * The US invaded Grenada in 1983, which was so popular among its people that they celebrate Thanksgiving on the anniversary source * The US invaded Panama in 1990 to depose an actual drug lord and CBS poll found that 92% of Panamanians supported the invasion source * From 1993 to 1995 the US led the effort to create a no-fly zone over Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing by Serbia source * In 1994 the US invaded Haiti to restore its democratically elected leader after he was overthrown in a military coup source EDIT: minor typo","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3560.0,"score_ratio":12.5} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42utot","c_root_id_B":"i43smwo","created_at_utc_A":1649536536,"created_at_utc_B":1649551949,"score_A":4,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003 Well, it\u2019s really unfortunate that we don\u2019t have a parallel Ba\u2019athist dictatorship in the Middle East that the US left alone, so we can see how that turned out. Oh wait, there is one. >a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. The theory was, better our dictators, that could be brought to democracies, rather than their dictators, which could not. And that turned out to be true.","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t know why you posted this here, you are set in your opinion and no amount of facts will change your view. But with that said, here is my attempt. First, I actually agree with you that the US needs to stop worrying about the rest of the world so much and focus more on solving the problems we have at home. (Yes, I\u2019m an American and was part of the US Air Force for 17 years). And though our politicians may have their own personal reasons for getting involved in other nations affairs, those politicians wouldn\u2019t stay in power if the American people didn\u2019t agree that our intervention was needed. And for the most part, what our citizens want is to help those we see as less fortunate (which because of our narcissism and ego is just about everyone else in the world). Now you try to use Iraq as an example, that it would be better if the US never got involved then it is now. Having served in Iraq, I can tell you the Kurdish population whole heartedly disagrees with you. Saddam was committing genocide of the Kurdish people using chemical and biological weapons. He was also developing hundreds of liters of chemical and biological weapons to use against Western nations, including Israel, European nations, and the US. And he was supplying these weapons of mass terror to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Afghanistan is another great example, both before the US went into Afghanistan and after they left, that country was run by the Taliban, which brutalizes women and children and anyone in the LGBT community. But while we were there, women had more rights and were close to true equal treatment, and children felt safe and were able to go to school and be educated, and LGBT even started having a foothold. Now America wouldn\u2019t need to get involved in these other countries if Western European countries (like France and Germany) who cry about our global policing, could get involved a do it themselves. But as the invasion of Ukraine shows, the first thing these countries do as soon as something happens in their back yard is cower and cry for the US to step up and get involved (and don\u2019t try to say NATO, as the US has the largest percentage of military forces in nato so even NATO troops are Mostly US troops). So once other countries start stepping up, then maybe the US can step back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15413.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42m890","c_root_id_B":"i43smwo","created_at_utc_A":1649532790,"created_at_utc_B":1649551949,"score_A":3,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"This seems to me to be based on a common fallacy that administrations such as those that run the US have only one motive , one intent rather than complex groups of them some within individuals involved, some between individuals involved. Countries can act both because they think it will be of benefit *and* because they think they might bring others benefit. Much if what was done during the Cold War was done to prevent the growth of Soviet power. It might have been selfish, done badly, even been self-defeating but the motive , bearing in mind the horrors perpetrated by the Soviet Union necessarily a totally wrong motive. The recent interventions have been somewhat different. I think there was ( as at least one motive) a genuine sense that regime change could remove a seriously unpleasant regime and be a test bed for a capitalist \/democratic nation state in the Middle East , as well as a fear of WMDs getting into terrorist hands after 9\/11 involved in the decision to go to war in Iraq. And despite the horrors unleashed , I wonder whether now the population would choose to go back if they could - I don\u2019t know. Again in Libya one motive was that the regime was about to crush what looked like an Arab spring type rebellion as had been done previously. As a country with the power to intervene and witnessing a brutal dictatorship about to destroy a rebel city - are we right to just let it happen? Of course we now know that intervention ( especially with little thought to afterwards) can cause as much problems as it attempted to solve. But that doesn\u2019t mean that nonintervention isn\u2019t a difficult moral decision sometimes. I mean what do you think of the intervention in what was Yugoslavia to stop genocide , or the intervention with military supplies in Ukraine? Don\u2019t get me wrong. I\u2019m not suggesting that the US may not also have \u2018bad\u2019 motives, nor suggesting they shouldn\u2019t have made less interventions - just saying it\u2019s not always uncomplicated. And it\u2019s become obvious that democracy isn\u2019t something that can be imposed externally very easily - still not easy to perhaps leave democratic rebellions to be slaughtered , and unfortunately sometimes the rebels turn out to be as bad as the regime they rebel against.","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t know why you posted this here, you are set in your opinion and no amount of facts will change your view. But with that said, here is my attempt. First, I actually agree with you that the US needs to stop worrying about the rest of the world so much and focus more on solving the problems we have at home. (Yes, I\u2019m an American and was part of the US Air Force for 17 years). And though our politicians may have their own personal reasons for getting involved in other nations affairs, those politicians wouldn\u2019t stay in power if the American people didn\u2019t agree that our intervention was needed. And for the most part, what our citizens want is to help those we see as less fortunate (which because of our narcissism and ego is just about everyone else in the world). Now you try to use Iraq as an example, that it would be better if the US never got involved then it is now. Having served in Iraq, I can tell you the Kurdish population whole heartedly disagrees with you. Saddam was committing genocide of the Kurdish people using chemical and biological weapons. He was also developing hundreds of liters of chemical and biological weapons to use against Western nations, including Israel, European nations, and the US. And he was supplying these weapons of mass terror to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Afghanistan is another great example, both before the US went into Afghanistan and after they left, that country was run by the Taliban, which brutalizes women and children and anyone in the LGBT community. But while we were there, women had more rights and were close to true equal treatment, and children felt safe and were able to go to school and be educated, and LGBT even started having a foothold. Now America wouldn\u2019t need to get involved in these other countries if Western European countries (like France and Germany) who cry about our global policing, could get involved a do it themselves. But as the invasion of Ukraine shows, the first thing these countries do as soon as something happens in their back yard is cower and cry for the US to step up and get involved (and don\u2019t try to say NATO, as the US has the largest percentage of military forces in nato so even NATO troops are Mostly US troops). So once other countries start stepping up, then maybe the US can step back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19159.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42lp00","c_root_id_B":"i43smwo","created_at_utc_A":1649532562,"created_at_utc_B":1649551949,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t care to dispute the overall point of this CMV, but there are two very different types of interventions that you lump together here. When the US act on the authority of the UN Security Council (or NATO, as it usually would be in those cases), we have a very different intervention than when the US decides to do something on their own. One such example is Libya in 2011. Whether Libya is better off because of the intervention or not I\u2019m not qualified to comment, but the fact that it was the international community who decided an intervention was needed makes me judge it very differently from Iraq in 2003, when the US (and some other countries) on their own decided it would be for the best if they intervened.","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t know why you posted this here, you are set in your opinion and no amount of facts will change your view. But with that said, here is my attempt. First, I actually agree with you that the US needs to stop worrying about the rest of the world so much and focus more on solving the problems we have at home. (Yes, I\u2019m an American and was part of the US Air Force for 17 years). And though our politicians may have their own personal reasons for getting involved in other nations affairs, those politicians wouldn\u2019t stay in power if the American people didn\u2019t agree that our intervention was needed. And for the most part, what our citizens want is to help those we see as less fortunate (which because of our narcissism and ego is just about everyone else in the world). Now you try to use Iraq as an example, that it would be better if the US never got involved then it is now. Having served in Iraq, I can tell you the Kurdish population whole heartedly disagrees with you. Saddam was committing genocide of the Kurdish people using chemical and biological weapons. He was also developing hundreds of liters of chemical and biological weapons to use against Western nations, including Israel, European nations, and the US. And he was supplying these weapons of mass terror to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Afghanistan is another great example, both before the US went into Afghanistan and after they left, that country was run by the Taliban, which brutalizes women and children and anyone in the LGBT community. But while we were there, women had more rights and were close to true equal treatment, and children felt safe and were able to go to school and be educated, and LGBT even started having a foothold. Now America wouldn\u2019t need to get involved in these other countries if Western European countries (like France and Germany) who cry about our global policing, could get involved a do it themselves. But as the invasion of Ukraine shows, the first thing these countries do as soon as something happens in their back yard is cower and cry for the US to step up and get involved (and don\u2019t try to say NATO, as the US has the largest percentage of military forces in nato so even NATO troops are Mostly US troops). So once other countries start stepping up, then maybe the US can step back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19387.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i43smwo","c_root_id_B":"i42nkql","created_at_utc_A":1649551949,"created_at_utc_B":1649533365,"score_A":10,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t know why you posted this here, you are set in your opinion and no amount of facts will change your view. But with that said, here is my attempt. First, I actually agree with you that the US needs to stop worrying about the rest of the world so much and focus more on solving the problems we have at home. (Yes, I\u2019m an American and was part of the US Air Force for 17 years). And though our politicians may have their own personal reasons for getting involved in other nations affairs, those politicians wouldn\u2019t stay in power if the American people didn\u2019t agree that our intervention was needed. And for the most part, what our citizens want is to help those we see as less fortunate (which because of our narcissism and ego is just about everyone else in the world). Now you try to use Iraq as an example, that it would be better if the US never got involved then it is now. Having served in Iraq, I can tell you the Kurdish population whole heartedly disagrees with you. Saddam was committing genocide of the Kurdish people using chemical and biological weapons. He was also developing hundreds of liters of chemical and biological weapons to use against Western nations, including Israel, European nations, and the US. And he was supplying these weapons of mass terror to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Afghanistan is another great example, both before the US went into Afghanistan and after they left, that country was run by the Taliban, which brutalizes women and children and anyone in the LGBT community. But while we were there, women had more rights and were close to true equal treatment, and children felt safe and were able to go to school and be educated, and LGBT even started having a foothold. Now America wouldn\u2019t need to get involved in these other countries if Western European countries (like France and Germany) who cry about our global policing, could get involved a do it themselves. But as the invasion of Ukraine shows, the first thing these countries do as soon as something happens in their back yard is cower and cry for the US to step up and get involved (and don\u2019t try to say NATO, as the US has the largest percentage of military forces in nato so even NATO troops are Mostly US troops). So once other countries start stepping up, then maybe the US can step back.","human_ref_B":"Indeed, we can't have it both ways. Ukraine is in trouble and the guys invading are just killing everybody and blowing everything up. So we can't stand back and do nothing. We suck, but we can help sometimes too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18584.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42t387","c_root_id_B":"i43smwo","created_at_utc_A":1649535775,"created_at_utc_B":1649551949,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"The world's policeman has never been a good actor. The US is as close as we've come though. I was once at a hostel where British, Dutch, & Spanish guys were making a similar point. I reminded to look at their own houses. Sure we suck at being the world's cop & should do way less of it but compared to literally every other country that's ever claimed the role... We're like the police chief who brags about his cops only killing 100 people that year when it was 500 before. It's not something to brag about but, he was at least closer to success.","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t know why you posted this here, you are set in your opinion and no amount of facts will change your view. But with that said, here is my attempt. First, I actually agree with you that the US needs to stop worrying about the rest of the world so much and focus more on solving the problems we have at home. (Yes, I\u2019m an American and was part of the US Air Force for 17 years). And though our politicians may have their own personal reasons for getting involved in other nations affairs, those politicians wouldn\u2019t stay in power if the American people didn\u2019t agree that our intervention was needed. And for the most part, what our citizens want is to help those we see as less fortunate (which because of our narcissism and ego is just about everyone else in the world). Now you try to use Iraq as an example, that it would be better if the US never got involved then it is now. Having served in Iraq, I can tell you the Kurdish population whole heartedly disagrees with you. Saddam was committing genocide of the Kurdish people using chemical and biological weapons. He was also developing hundreds of liters of chemical and biological weapons to use against Western nations, including Israel, European nations, and the US. And he was supplying these weapons of mass terror to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Afghanistan is another great example, both before the US went into Afghanistan and after they left, that country was run by the Taliban, which brutalizes women and children and anyone in the LGBT community. But while we were there, women had more rights and were close to true equal treatment, and children felt safe and were able to go to school and be educated, and LGBT even started having a foothold. Now America wouldn\u2019t need to get involved in these other countries if Western European countries (like France and Germany) who cry about our global policing, could get involved a do it themselves. But as the invasion of Ukraine shows, the first thing these countries do as soon as something happens in their back yard is cower and cry for the US to step up and get involved (and don\u2019t try to say NATO, as the US has the largest percentage of military forces in nato so even NATO troops are Mostly US troops). So once other countries start stepping up, then maybe the US can step back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16174.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i43i0we","c_root_id_B":"i43smwo","created_at_utc_A":1649546867,"created_at_utc_B":1649551949,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"You concept is a bit like saying you should only manage you\u2019re household so far as the things that happen within your property. Just because things happen outside of our home, does not mean that we do not have a vested interest in how they turn out, and we are always first most acting in the best interest of our own nation- not policing for the sake of it. You don\u2019t ignore threats or problems to your family because they happen away from your home. It\u2019s the same concept on a larger scale. It makes a lot more sense to try to quash catastrophic world events, and things detrimental to our way of life at the best vantage point (be them slow rising or spent and dwindling), rather than than when they are in full force unless they are n immediate threat to us, just like it makes sense to problem solve in day to day life in a strategic way. However, decision makers are not omniscient and err as all humans are prone to do since the world is not a perfect place and not all interest align with one another internally and from nation to nation. This can be said for any nation. You can\u2019t use individual events as a reason for this to be \u2018good\u2019 or \u2018bad \u2018 because it is always easy to judge with time and hindsight, and a lot of post event research at hand that is not available at the moment when world events take place, regardless of how much intelligence we have (we never, if ever have the whole picture until after the fact). It isn\u2019t policing. It is protecting and maintaining one\u2019s own interests and we all do it from the smallest to largest scale. Of course the motive is for their own own benefit. Why else would there be involvement? This can be said for by nation in regards to non humanitarian efforts","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t know why you posted this here, you are set in your opinion and no amount of facts will change your view. But with that said, here is my attempt. First, I actually agree with you that the US needs to stop worrying about the rest of the world so much and focus more on solving the problems we have at home. (Yes, I\u2019m an American and was part of the US Air Force for 17 years). And though our politicians may have their own personal reasons for getting involved in other nations affairs, those politicians wouldn\u2019t stay in power if the American people didn\u2019t agree that our intervention was needed. And for the most part, what our citizens want is to help those we see as less fortunate (which because of our narcissism and ego is just about everyone else in the world). Now you try to use Iraq as an example, that it would be better if the US never got involved then it is now. Having served in Iraq, I can tell you the Kurdish population whole heartedly disagrees with you. Saddam was committing genocide of the Kurdish people using chemical and biological weapons. He was also developing hundreds of liters of chemical and biological weapons to use against Western nations, including Israel, European nations, and the US. And he was supplying these weapons of mass terror to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Afghanistan is another great example, both before the US went into Afghanistan and after they left, that country was run by the Taliban, which brutalizes women and children and anyone in the LGBT community. But while we were there, women had more rights and were close to true equal treatment, and children felt safe and were able to go to school and be educated, and LGBT even started having a foothold. Now America wouldn\u2019t need to get involved in these other countries if Western European countries (like France and Germany) who cry about our global policing, could get involved a do it themselves. But as the invasion of Ukraine shows, the first thing these countries do as soon as something happens in their back yard is cower and cry for the US to step up and get involved (and don\u2019t try to say NATO, as the US has the largest percentage of military forces in nato so even NATO troops are Mostly US troops). So once other countries start stepping up, then maybe the US can step back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5082.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i43rvss","c_root_id_B":"i43smwo","created_at_utc_A":1649551579,"created_at_utc_B":1649551949,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"East Germany sucked. It sucked less than Hitler. The problem seems to me that they aren't good enough at doing it. If America really could police the whole world and make it a democracy, wouldn't that be better? The real problem is that the world is full of abusive, evil bullies and they get thier way because of political concerns. Saddam was an evil asshole and it was good that he was gone, but other people just has to try to step in and replace him. They didn't have to do that. In Afghanistan they just let the Taliban take over again and did nothing to fight them. For all the faults of America, at least it's people once fought back against a tyrant and tried to improve their country. Now the world is again being threatened by a madman and held hostage to his narcissistic ego. Can you really say it wouldn't be better for everyone if that wasn't the case? Why can't people just chill the fuck out? You say those people don't want democracy...that's an oxymoron. Since democracy is the only political system that allows people to express what they want. It doesn't matter what they want if they don't have a choice. They can choose to have Daddy running everything if that's what they want. What does it take away from them to be able to choose to get rid of him if he's an asshole?","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t know why you posted this here, you are set in your opinion and no amount of facts will change your view. But with that said, here is my attempt. First, I actually agree with you that the US needs to stop worrying about the rest of the world so much and focus more on solving the problems we have at home. (Yes, I\u2019m an American and was part of the US Air Force for 17 years). And though our politicians may have their own personal reasons for getting involved in other nations affairs, those politicians wouldn\u2019t stay in power if the American people didn\u2019t agree that our intervention was needed. And for the most part, what our citizens want is to help those we see as less fortunate (which because of our narcissism and ego is just about everyone else in the world). Now you try to use Iraq as an example, that it would be better if the US never got involved then it is now. Having served in Iraq, I can tell you the Kurdish population whole heartedly disagrees with you. Saddam was committing genocide of the Kurdish people using chemical and biological weapons. He was also developing hundreds of liters of chemical and biological weapons to use against Western nations, including Israel, European nations, and the US. And he was supplying these weapons of mass terror to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. Afghanistan is another great example, both before the US went into Afghanistan and after they left, that country was run by the Taliban, which brutalizes women and children and anyone in the LGBT community. But while we were there, women had more rights and were close to true equal treatment, and children felt safe and were able to go to school and be educated, and LGBT even started having a foothold. Now America wouldn\u2019t need to get involved in these other countries if Western European countries (like France and Germany) who cry about our global policing, could get involved a do it themselves. But as the invasion of Ukraine shows, the first thing these countries do as soon as something happens in their back yard is cower and cry for the US to step up and get involved (and don\u2019t try to say NATO, as the US has the largest percentage of military forces in nato so even NATO troops are Mostly US troops). So once other countries start stepping up, then maybe the US can step back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":370.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42utot","c_root_id_B":"i42m890","created_at_utc_A":1649536536,"created_at_utc_B":1649532790,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003 Well, it\u2019s really unfortunate that we don\u2019t have a parallel Ba\u2019athist dictatorship in the Middle East that the US left alone, so we can see how that turned out. Oh wait, there is one. >a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. The theory was, better our dictators, that could be brought to democracies, rather than their dictators, which could not. And that turned out to be true.","human_ref_B":"This seems to me to be based on a common fallacy that administrations such as those that run the US have only one motive , one intent rather than complex groups of them some within individuals involved, some between individuals involved. Countries can act both because they think it will be of benefit *and* because they think they might bring others benefit. Much if what was done during the Cold War was done to prevent the growth of Soviet power. It might have been selfish, done badly, even been self-defeating but the motive , bearing in mind the horrors perpetrated by the Soviet Union necessarily a totally wrong motive. The recent interventions have been somewhat different. I think there was ( as at least one motive) a genuine sense that regime change could remove a seriously unpleasant regime and be a test bed for a capitalist \/democratic nation state in the Middle East , as well as a fear of WMDs getting into terrorist hands after 9\/11 involved in the decision to go to war in Iraq. And despite the horrors unleashed , I wonder whether now the population would choose to go back if they could - I don\u2019t know. Again in Libya one motive was that the regime was about to crush what looked like an Arab spring type rebellion as had been done previously. As a country with the power to intervene and witnessing a brutal dictatorship about to destroy a rebel city - are we right to just let it happen? Of course we now know that intervention ( especially with little thought to afterwards) can cause as much problems as it attempted to solve. But that doesn\u2019t mean that nonintervention isn\u2019t a difficult moral decision sometimes. I mean what do you think of the intervention in what was Yugoslavia to stop genocide , or the intervention with military supplies in Ukraine? Don\u2019t get me wrong. I\u2019m not suggesting that the US may not also have \u2018bad\u2019 motives, nor suggesting they shouldn\u2019t have made less interventions - just saying it\u2019s not always uncomplicated. And it\u2019s become obvious that democracy isn\u2019t something that can be imposed externally very easily - still not easy to perhaps leave democratic rebellions to be slaughtered , and unfortunately sometimes the rebels turn out to be as bad as the regime they rebel against.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3746.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42utot","c_root_id_B":"i42lp00","created_at_utc_A":1649536536,"created_at_utc_B":1649532562,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003 Well, it\u2019s really unfortunate that we don\u2019t have a parallel Ba\u2019athist dictatorship in the Middle East that the US left alone, so we can see how that turned out. Oh wait, there is one. >a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. The theory was, better our dictators, that could be brought to democracies, rather than their dictators, which could not. And that turned out to be true.","human_ref_B":"I don\u2019t care to dispute the overall point of this CMV, but there are two very different types of interventions that you lump together here. When the US act on the authority of the UN Security Council (or NATO, as it usually would be in those cases), we have a very different intervention than when the US decides to do something on their own. One such example is Libya in 2011. Whether Libya is better off because of the intervention or not I\u2019m not qualified to comment, but the fact that it was the international community who decided an intervention was needed makes me judge it very differently from Iraq in 2003, when the US (and some other countries) on their own decided it would be for the best if they intervened.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3974.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42nkql","c_root_id_B":"i42utot","created_at_utc_A":1649533365,"created_at_utc_B":1649536536,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Indeed, we can't have it both ways. Ukraine is in trouble and the guys invading are just killing everybody and blowing everything up. So we can't stand back and do nothing. We suck, but we can help sometimes too.","human_ref_B":">Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003 Well, it\u2019s really unfortunate that we don\u2019t have a parallel Ba\u2019athist dictatorship in the Middle East that the US left alone, so we can see how that turned out. Oh wait, there is one. >a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. The theory was, better our dictators, that could be brought to democracies, rather than their dictators, which could not. And that turned out to be true.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3171.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42t387","c_root_id_B":"i42utot","created_at_utc_A":1649535775,"created_at_utc_B":1649536536,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The world's policeman has never been a good actor. The US is as close as we've come though. I was once at a hostel where British, Dutch, & Spanish guys were making a similar point. I reminded to look at their own houses. Sure we suck at being the world's cop & should do way less of it but compared to literally every other country that's ever claimed the role... We're like the police chief who brags about his cops only killing 100 people that year when it was 500 before. It's not something to brag about but, he was at least closer to success.","human_ref_B":">Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003 Well, it\u2019s really unfortunate that we don\u2019t have a parallel Ba\u2019athist dictatorship in the Middle East that the US left alone, so we can see how that turned out. Oh wait, there is one. >a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. The theory was, better our dictators, that could be brought to democracies, rather than their dictators, which could not. And that turned out to be true.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":761.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"u00657","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: The US shouldn't act as the \"world's police\" and them \"bringing democracy\" is just a facade The US has led more foreign interventions than almost any other country in the world since WWII (with the exception, maybe, of the USSR). However, it seems to me like their motives are always for their own benefit: practically any intervention during the Cold War, Iraq, Iran... Iraq would've been better now if the US hadn't intervened in 2003, same for Iran in 1953, and certainly Libya in 2011. These are more recent, there's also Operation Condor which was a flurry of American intervention in Latin America which funded brutal dictators. They seem to create more and more power vacuums and claim they're \"liberating\" those countries.","c_root_id_A":"i42lp00","c_root_id_B":"i42m890","created_at_utc_A":1649532562,"created_at_utc_B":1649532790,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t care to dispute the overall point of this CMV, but there are two very different types of interventions that you lump together here. When the US act on the authority of the UN Security Council (or NATO, as it usually would be in those cases), we have a very different intervention than when the US decides to do something on their own. One such example is Libya in 2011. Whether Libya is better off because of the intervention or not I\u2019m not qualified to comment, but the fact that it was the international community who decided an intervention was needed makes me judge it very differently from Iraq in 2003, when the US (and some other countries) on their own decided it would be for the best if they intervened.","human_ref_B":"This seems to me to be based on a common fallacy that administrations such as those that run the US have only one motive , one intent rather than complex groups of them some within individuals involved, some between individuals involved. Countries can act both because they think it will be of benefit *and* because they think they might bring others benefit. Much if what was done during the Cold War was done to prevent the growth of Soviet power. It might have been selfish, done badly, even been self-defeating but the motive , bearing in mind the horrors perpetrated by the Soviet Union necessarily a totally wrong motive. The recent interventions have been somewhat different. I think there was ( as at least one motive) a genuine sense that regime change could remove a seriously unpleasant regime and be a test bed for a capitalist \/democratic nation state in the Middle East , as well as a fear of WMDs getting into terrorist hands after 9\/11 involved in the decision to go to war in Iraq. And despite the horrors unleashed , I wonder whether now the population would choose to go back if they could - I don\u2019t know. Again in Libya one motive was that the regime was about to crush what looked like an Arab spring type rebellion as had been done previously. As a country with the power to intervene and witnessing a brutal dictatorship about to destroy a rebel city - are we right to just let it happen? Of course we now know that intervention ( especially with little thought to afterwards) can cause as much problems as it attempted to solve. But that doesn\u2019t mean that nonintervention isn\u2019t a difficult moral decision sometimes. I mean what do you think of the intervention in what was Yugoslavia to stop genocide , or the intervention with military supplies in Ukraine? Don\u2019t get me wrong. I\u2019m not suggesting that the US may not also have \u2018bad\u2019 motives, nor suggesting they shouldn\u2019t have made less interventions - just saying it\u2019s not always uncomplicated. And it\u2019s become obvious that democracy isn\u2019t something that can be imposed externally very easily - still not easy to perhaps leave democratic rebellions to be slaughtered , and unfortunately sometimes the rebels turn out to be as bad as the regime they rebel against.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":228.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"jroh35","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: We give way to much attention to what a candidate looks like and base our vote too heavily on appearance. It has led to a precedent of counting the \"firsts\" - first black POTUS, first black\/woman VP, etc., which is distracting from what truly matters and undermines the equality we strive for. Full disclosure, I'm a natural born white American male -- the historically most privileged demographic in my country's history. I'm a born engineer; I'm logical, analytical, and perhaps emotionally stunted. I want to accentuate that last part, as that's the reason I'm posting this today. I can't think of a single instance I've felt proud of another solely because they looked like me, nor does it jive with my opinion of the way the world should work. My (white) girlfriend is much more emotionally intelligent than I am when it comes to connecting with and understanding other people. After the race was called for Biden, she expressed overwhelmingly that Harris's election to the Vice Presidency is emotionally significant for her because of finally having female representation elected to the White House. I asked her why it mattered and we went back and forth with point\/counterpoint until she ultimately changed her mind. Following that, there are lots of news reports singling out specific demographics as responsible for the Biden\/Harris election. The most obvious example is the thanking of black women who as a demographic overwhelmingly, though not unanimously, voted for Biden. Admittedly, I haven't sought out specific or exact numbers, but I've sought enough information to speak generically and make essential arguments. To thank any single specific demographic for this election undermines the equality we are striving for by focusing on aspects of people which *do not transfer* to ideology with enough correlation to vote blindly for a candidate. For example, without the white vote, Biden doesn't win election - period...but the same *is true* for black women, *and* the fractions of other demographics that voted for Biden. It's a coalition and we got here together *and only together.* Remove *any* demographic from Biden's votes and *he does not win.* Stacey Abrams should be individually celebrated for obvious reasons, her activism is directly responsible for registering hundreds of thousands of previously unregistered voters. You'd be hard-pressed to hear me disagree with her significance to Georgia, the Biden campaign, or the future of our country. She is a born leader who I would be proud to have represent me; I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. However, this gave rise to the narrative that we should *thank* the newly registered voters for delivering the election, and I think this is a logically dangerous argument because of its retroactive implications. Celebrate and thank Stacey Abrams, yes, her activism brought people to their duty to our country, but it's a slippery slope to thanking and blaming people who didn't, for whatever reason, register themselves prior. It would be wrong to blame the previously unregistered for the election of Trump and it logically follows that it would be wrong to thank the same group for the election of Biden. I'm glad they have joined our coalition, but they are absorbed into the whole and not separately responsible for the outcome of this or any other election. One of the GF's facebook friends argue passionately that Harris's election matters because she feels that female legislators would better represent and legislate for her values as a women , specifically for women's health, right to abortion\/autonomy, etc. By this logic, I should never vote for a woman as they would not represent who I am as a man and would be \"unqualified\" to legislate for men's health, etc., which is an argument I find patently ridiculous. It's not at all difficult to find a few examples of congresswomen or elected female officials who are ideologically against abortion while also finding old white men adamantly in favor of a woman's right to autonomy. And such is the crux of my argument - electing someone based on *what* they are (race, gender) instead of *who* they are (personality) and what they *believe* (ideology) is a flawed concept that flies in the face of what it means to be truly equal. The idea that it is *necessary* that country elects more POC or to advocate against a candidate because they are an old white guy without considering their ideologies is fundamentally flawed. What is necessary is we elect candidates who consider and legislate in the interest of *all* of their constituents while understanding that it is *impossible* for an elected official physically represent more than a subsection of their constituents. I also recently had seen John McCain's concession speech to President Obama, which is incredibly moving if you haven't watched it. In it, he acknowledges the significance of the election of an African American to the White House, that the demographic must be proud, and that night was theirs to celebrate. I voted for Obama and it wasn't because he was a black man poised to make history, but John McCain's speech made me second-guess myself again, although I remain firm that while it was notable it was not actually significant. McCain suggested in that speech that Obama's election was evidence of how far we've come in racial division. The events of the last four years prove he was wrong to take his assumption that far, as our society continues to be poisoned by white supremacy and an absolute chasm between ideologies. I would say McCain's assertion is only accurate for the democratic party, whos elected officials are *roughly* as diverse and representative of their actual constituents, but I digress. While I can sympathize with the emotional significance Obama's election had for the black American community in a historical sense, in a \"rags to riches\" sense, from an enslaved-population-to-one-which-helps-decide-the-direction-for-all-Americans sense, I think we can all agree now that Obama's skin color had little effect on the policy he implemented or the way he led and governed, which is evidence of the fact that while a true representation of our country would inevitably elect a black man and *will* inevitably elect a woman, it is not necessary nor appropriate to do so specifically for the notion that we as a nation are not well represented until we do so. What shapes a person as they grow and mature is undeniably tied to their demographic. Their life experiences will be different and that will inform different beliefs and behaviors. Obama and Harris were, of course, shaped by being black in American society. Their ideologies are a byproduct of their upbringing and life experiences, but it would be wrong to suggest they have similar ideologies *because they are black.* I consider myself to have similar ideologies to either of them, and I am not black nor did my upbringing or life experiences look anything like either of theirs. The point is that while our demographics help to shape who we become because of our interactions with the world, they don't unilaterally define our ideologies. What matters is what ideology a candidate passionately represents and not especially how they arrived at it through the course of their lives. This would also imply that a candidate who updates their ideologies in the face of new information is a better candidate than one which does not. If a candidate voted for a bill two decades ago which disproportionately affected a demographic, but today they advocate for reform of that same bill in recognition of the effect it had on that demographic, it would be wrong to define that person by an ideology they no longer support (I know this seems to allude to Biden\/1994 crime bill, but I don't want to pigeonhole the argument and I don't know enough details of that situation to argue competently, nor am I taking a stance on anything Biden did then or will do in the future). So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even *as much* \\- about what our representation looks like instead of what they believe? Why should the news headlines care about a 'first' anything - first black president, first black\/woman VP, first second gentlemen, first Jewish spouse in the White House -- doesn't this belong in a tabloid? Why is it appropriate to put so much emotional stock in these various aspects of a candidate which, while correlated, don't define a person's ideology? Why is it appropriate to publicly recognize only a small subsect of a voting bloc when the absence of *any* subsect of that voting bloc would sink their candidate? What matters is policy and ideology, full stop. The rest is superficial and it's distracting and harmful to the quality of our democracy to place so much importance on it.","c_root_id_A":"gbudj5l","c_root_id_B":"gbucyz0","created_at_utc_A":1605027493,"created_at_utc_B":1605027235,"score_A":23,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"If you break your arm, the state you strive for is to have an unbroken arm. But you cannot achieve that state by ignoring your broken arm and simply pretending it is unbroken and that both your arms are in the same situation when they are not. This is true of inequalities that exist. They do not go away by simply pretending they don't exist, or by pretending that the desired end state currently exists. So it's important to care about the successes of disadvantaged demographics for the same reason you care about the healing of a broken arm: it is a measure of how we are transitioning from the broken state to the desired state, something that cannot be achieved if we pretend it doesn't exist.","human_ref_B":"> So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even as much - about what our representation looks like History has shown (repeatedly and consistently) that if our representation all looks the same (i.e. old white men) then the decisions they make will tend to favor old white men and disfavor everyone else. It's simply irrational to believe that all groups should expect equal representation when the deciders are all from only one group. Edit: As far as celebrating firsts and whatnot... if we started off with equal representation from day one, there would be no reason to celebrate strides towards more equal representation. The reason for the celebration is that we have endured centuries of unequal representation and have witnessed the suffering it caused.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":258.0,"score_ratio":2.0909090909} {"post_id":"jroh35","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: We give way to much attention to what a candidate looks like and base our vote too heavily on appearance. It has led to a precedent of counting the \"firsts\" - first black POTUS, first black\/woman VP, etc., which is distracting from what truly matters and undermines the equality we strive for. Full disclosure, I'm a natural born white American male -- the historically most privileged demographic in my country's history. I'm a born engineer; I'm logical, analytical, and perhaps emotionally stunted. I want to accentuate that last part, as that's the reason I'm posting this today. I can't think of a single instance I've felt proud of another solely because they looked like me, nor does it jive with my opinion of the way the world should work. My (white) girlfriend is much more emotionally intelligent than I am when it comes to connecting with and understanding other people. After the race was called for Biden, she expressed overwhelmingly that Harris's election to the Vice Presidency is emotionally significant for her because of finally having female representation elected to the White House. I asked her why it mattered and we went back and forth with point\/counterpoint until she ultimately changed her mind. Following that, there are lots of news reports singling out specific demographics as responsible for the Biden\/Harris election. The most obvious example is the thanking of black women who as a demographic overwhelmingly, though not unanimously, voted for Biden. Admittedly, I haven't sought out specific or exact numbers, but I've sought enough information to speak generically and make essential arguments. To thank any single specific demographic for this election undermines the equality we are striving for by focusing on aspects of people which *do not transfer* to ideology with enough correlation to vote blindly for a candidate. For example, without the white vote, Biden doesn't win election - period...but the same *is true* for black women, *and* the fractions of other demographics that voted for Biden. It's a coalition and we got here together *and only together.* Remove *any* demographic from Biden's votes and *he does not win.* Stacey Abrams should be individually celebrated for obvious reasons, her activism is directly responsible for registering hundreds of thousands of previously unregistered voters. You'd be hard-pressed to hear me disagree with her significance to Georgia, the Biden campaign, or the future of our country. She is a born leader who I would be proud to have represent me; I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. However, this gave rise to the narrative that we should *thank* the newly registered voters for delivering the election, and I think this is a logically dangerous argument because of its retroactive implications. Celebrate and thank Stacey Abrams, yes, her activism brought people to their duty to our country, but it's a slippery slope to thanking and blaming people who didn't, for whatever reason, register themselves prior. It would be wrong to blame the previously unregistered for the election of Trump and it logically follows that it would be wrong to thank the same group for the election of Biden. I'm glad they have joined our coalition, but they are absorbed into the whole and not separately responsible for the outcome of this or any other election. One of the GF's facebook friends argue passionately that Harris's election matters because she feels that female legislators would better represent and legislate for her values as a women , specifically for women's health, right to abortion\/autonomy, etc. By this logic, I should never vote for a woman as they would not represent who I am as a man and would be \"unqualified\" to legislate for men's health, etc., which is an argument I find patently ridiculous. It's not at all difficult to find a few examples of congresswomen or elected female officials who are ideologically against abortion while also finding old white men adamantly in favor of a woman's right to autonomy. And such is the crux of my argument - electing someone based on *what* they are (race, gender) instead of *who* they are (personality) and what they *believe* (ideology) is a flawed concept that flies in the face of what it means to be truly equal. The idea that it is *necessary* that country elects more POC or to advocate against a candidate because they are an old white guy without considering their ideologies is fundamentally flawed. What is necessary is we elect candidates who consider and legislate in the interest of *all* of their constituents while understanding that it is *impossible* for an elected official physically represent more than a subsection of their constituents. I also recently had seen John McCain's concession speech to President Obama, which is incredibly moving if you haven't watched it. In it, he acknowledges the significance of the election of an African American to the White House, that the demographic must be proud, and that night was theirs to celebrate. I voted for Obama and it wasn't because he was a black man poised to make history, but John McCain's speech made me second-guess myself again, although I remain firm that while it was notable it was not actually significant. McCain suggested in that speech that Obama's election was evidence of how far we've come in racial division. The events of the last four years prove he was wrong to take his assumption that far, as our society continues to be poisoned by white supremacy and an absolute chasm between ideologies. I would say McCain's assertion is only accurate for the democratic party, whos elected officials are *roughly* as diverse and representative of their actual constituents, but I digress. While I can sympathize with the emotional significance Obama's election had for the black American community in a historical sense, in a \"rags to riches\" sense, from an enslaved-population-to-one-which-helps-decide-the-direction-for-all-Americans sense, I think we can all agree now that Obama's skin color had little effect on the policy he implemented or the way he led and governed, which is evidence of the fact that while a true representation of our country would inevitably elect a black man and *will* inevitably elect a woman, it is not necessary nor appropriate to do so specifically for the notion that we as a nation are not well represented until we do so. What shapes a person as they grow and mature is undeniably tied to their demographic. Their life experiences will be different and that will inform different beliefs and behaviors. Obama and Harris were, of course, shaped by being black in American society. Their ideologies are a byproduct of their upbringing and life experiences, but it would be wrong to suggest they have similar ideologies *because they are black.* I consider myself to have similar ideologies to either of them, and I am not black nor did my upbringing or life experiences look anything like either of theirs. The point is that while our demographics help to shape who we become because of our interactions with the world, they don't unilaterally define our ideologies. What matters is what ideology a candidate passionately represents and not especially how they arrived at it through the course of their lives. This would also imply that a candidate who updates their ideologies in the face of new information is a better candidate than one which does not. If a candidate voted for a bill two decades ago which disproportionately affected a demographic, but today they advocate for reform of that same bill in recognition of the effect it had on that demographic, it would be wrong to define that person by an ideology they no longer support (I know this seems to allude to Biden\/1994 crime bill, but I don't want to pigeonhole the argument and I don't know enough details of that situation to argue competently, nor am I taking a stance on anything Biden did then or will do in the future). So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even *as much* \\- about what our representation looks like instead of what they believe? Why should the news headlines care about a 'first' anything - first black president, first black\/woman VP, first second gentlemen, first Jewish spouse in the White House -- doesn't this belong in a tabloid? Why is it appropriate to put so much emotional stock in these various aspects of a candidate which, while correlated, don't define a person's ideology? Why is it appropriate to publicly recognize only a small subsect of a voting bloc when the absence of *any* subsect of that voting bloc would sink their candidate? What matters is policy and ideology, full stop. The rest is superficial and it's distracting and harmful to the quality of our democracy to place so much importance on it.","c_root_id_A":"gbukjoc","c_root_id_B":"gbucyz0","created_at_utc_A":1605030733,"created_at_utc_B":1605027235,"score_A":15,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The reason it's so exciting to witness new physical traits in our leadership isn't because they actually matter, but because historically a majority of people thought they did. For example I see both men and women as equally capable of strong leadership. But for most of history, most people didn't. Even today, many people see women as incapable of it. So seeing a woman in the role of VP is proof that people are changing their mind. It's the idea of our culture seeing me as equally capable that is exciting, not the specific person that got elected. So you ask why it's important. Because it demonstrates to our fellow Americans who aren't white men, that we respect their ability to lead as much as anyone else. That's new.","human_ref_B":"> So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even as much - about what our representation looks like History has shown (repeatedly and consistently) that if our representation all looks the same (i.e. old white men) then the decisions they make will tend to favor old white men and disfavor everyone else. It's simply irrational to believe that all groups should expect equal representation when the deciders are all from only one group. Edit: As far as celebrating firsts and whatnot... if we started off with equal representation from day one, there would be no reason to celebrate strides towards more equal representation. The reason for the celebration is that we have endured centuries of unequal representation and have witnessed the suffering it caused.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3498.0,"score_ratio":1.3636363636} {"post_id":"jroh35","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: We give way to much attention to what a candidate looks like and base our vote too heavily on appearance. It has led to a precedent of counting the \"firsts\" - first black POTUS, first black\/woman VP, etc., which is distracting from what truly matters and undermines the equality we strive for. Full disclosure, I'm a natural born white American male -- the historically most privileged demographic in my country's history. I'm a born engineer; I'm logical, analytical, and perhaps emotionally stunted. I want to accentuate that last part, as that's the reason I'm posting this today. I can't think of a single instance I've felt proud of another solely because they looked like me, nor does it jive with my opinion of the way the world should work. My (white) girlfriend is much more emotionally intelligent than I am when it comes to connecting with and understanding other people. After the race was called for Biden, she expressed overwhelmingly that Harris's election to the Vice Presidency is emotionally significant for her because of finally having female representation elected to the White House. I asked her why it mattered and we went back and forth with point\/counterpoint until she ultimately changed her mind. Following that, there are lots of news reports singling out specific demographics as responsible for the Biden\/Harris election. The most obvious example is the thanking of black women who as a demographic overwhelmingly, though not unanimously, voted for Biden. Admittedly, I haven't sought out specific or exact numbers, but I've sought enough information to speak generically and make essential arguments. To thank any single specific demographic for this election undermines the equality we are striving for by focusing on aspects of people which *do not transfer* to ideology with enough correlation to vote blindly for a candidate. For example, without the white vote, Biden doesn't win election - period...but the same *is true* for black women, *and* the fractions of other demographics that voted for Biden. It's a coalition and we got here together *and only together.* Remove *any* demographic from Biden's votes and *he does not win.* Stacey Abrams should be individually celebrated for obvious reasons, her activism is directly responsible for registering hundreds of thousands of previously unregistered voters. You'd be hard-pressed to hear me disagree with her significance to Georgia, the Biden campaign, or the future of our country. She is a born leader who I would be proud to have represent me; I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. However, this gave rise to the narrative that we should *thank* the newly registered voters for delivering the election, and I think this is a logically dangerous argument because of its retroactive implications. Celebrate and thank Stacey Abrams, yes, her activism brought people to their duty to our country, but it's a slippery slope to thanking and blaming people who didn't, for whatever reason, register themselves prior. It would be wrong to blame the previously unregistered for the election of Trump and it logically follows that it would be wrong to thank the same group for the election of Biden. I'm glad they have joined our coalition, but they are absorbed into the whole and not separately responsible for the outcome of this or any other election. One of the GF's facebook friends argue passionately that Harris's election matters because she feels that female legislators would better represent and legislate for her values as a women , specifically for women's health, right to abortion\/autonomy, etc. By this logic, I should never vote for a woman as they would not represent who I am as a man and would be \"unqualified\" to legislate for men's health, etc., which is an argument I find patently ridiculous. It's not at all difficult to find a few examples of congresswomen or elected female officials who are ideologically against abortion while also finding old white men adamantly in favor of a woman's right to autonomy. And such is the crux of my argument - electing someone based on *what* they are (race, gender) instead of *who* they are (personality) and what they *believe* (ideology) is a flawed concept that flies in the face of what it means to be truly equal. The idea that it is *necessary* that country elects more POC or to advocate against a candidate because they are an old white guy without considering their ideologies is fundamentally flawed. What is necessary is we elect candidates who consider and legislate in the interest of *all* of their constituents while understanding that it is *impossible* for an elected official physically represent more than a subsection of their constituents. I also recently had seen John McCain's concession speech to President Obama, which is incredibly moving if you haven't watched it. In it, he acknowledges the significance of the election of an African American to the White House, that the demographic must be proud, and that night was theirs to celebrate. I voted for Obama and it wasn't because he was a black man poised to make history, but John McCain's speech made me second-guess myself again, although I remain firm that while it was notable it was not actually significant. McCain suggested in that speech that Obama's election was evidence of how far we've come in racial division. The events of the last four years prove he was wrong to take his assumption that far, as our society continues to be poisoned by white supremacy and an absolute chasm between ideologies. I would say McCain's assertion is only accurate for the democratic party, whos elected officials are *roughly* as diverse and representative of their actual constituents, but I digress. While I can sympathize with the emotional significance Obama's election had for the black American community in a historical sense, in a \"rags to riches\" sense, from an enslaved-population-to-one-which-helps-decide-the-direction-for-all-Americans sense, I think we can all agree now that Obama's skin color had little effect on the policy he implemented or the way he led and governed, which is evidence of the fact that while a true representation of our country would inevitably elect a black man and *will* inevitably elect a woman, it is not necessary nor appropriate to do so specifically for the notion that we as a nation are not well represented until we do so. What shapes a person as they grow and mature is undeniably tied to their demographic. Their life experiences will be different and that will inform different beliefs and behaviors. Obama and Harris were, of course, shaped by being black in American society. Their ideologies are a byproduct of their upbringing and life experiences, but it would be wrong to suggest they have similar ideologies *because they are black.* I consider myself to have similar ideologies to either of them, and I am not black nor did my upbringing or life experiences look anything like either of theirs. The point is that while our demographics help to shape who we become because of our interactions with the world, they don't unilaterally define our ideologies. What matters is what ideology a candidate passionately represents and not especially how they arrived at it through the course of their lives. This would also imply that a candidate who updates their ideologies in the face of new information is a better candidate than one which does not. If a candidate voted for a bill two decades ago which disproportionately affected a demographic, but today they advocate for reform of that same bill in recognition of the effect it had on that demographic, it would be wrong to define that person by an ideology they no longer support (I know this seems to allude to Biden\/1994 crime bill, but I don't want to pigeonhole the argument and I don't know enough details of that situation to argue competently, nor am I taking a stance on anything Biden did then or will do in the future). So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even *as much* \\- about what our representation looks like instead of what they believe? Why should the news headlines care about a 'first' anything - first black president, first black\/woman VP, first second gentlemen, first Jewish spouse in the White House -- doesn't this belong in a tabloid? Why is it appropriate to put so much emotional stock in these various aspects of a candidate which, while correlated, don't define a person's ideology? Why is it appropriate to publicly recognize only a small subsect of a voting bloc when the absence of *any* subsect of that voting bloc would sink their candidate? What matters is policy and ideology, full stop. The rest is superficial and it's distracting and harmful to the quality of our democracy to place so much importance on it.","c_root_id_A":"gbuh50u","c_root_id_B":"gbukjoc","created_at_utc_A":1605029164,"created_at_utc_B":1605030733,"score_A":11,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":">So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even *as much* \\- about what our representation looks like instead of what they believe? Why should the news headlines care about a 'first' anything - first black president, first black\/woman VP, first second gentlemen, first Jewish spouse in the White House -- doesn't this belong in a tabloid? Is there really no where in between caring equally about what our representation believes and looks like and relegating news of the first female and first person of colour to ever be elected to the office of Vice President to the tabloids? I\u2019m not American but I would vote for Bernie Sanders over say Sarah Palin or Ben Carson in every instance (I can\u2019t think of a particularly right wing WOC). However people with different backgrounds bring different perspectives and there\u2019s no real risk of the white males perspective being lost in politics anytime soon. I like to think I\u2019m well informed about racism but as a white women I\u2019ve never experienced I can\u2019t tackle it with the nuance of someone that has. Women who have experienced workplace sexual harassment are uniquely able to express ideas to decrease instances and improve company responses. This I\u2019ve experienced this first hand. I work in industry, we had a supervisors meeting specifically about that issue. There were roughly twenty of us, three women. The men that did speak up all basically said I don\u2019t think it\u2019s an issue here I haven\u2019t seen it or had it reported to me. The three of us suggested ways to make people more comfortable coming forward. After our ideas were implemented more women came forward. There\u2019s also just the benefits of representation as a white man you probably grew up seeing being president as something you could do one day. Vice President Elect Harris just showed a generation of girls that they can be in the White House when they grow up. President Obama showed children of colour that they could and that matters. Another personal example when my little cousin watched my fix my now ex boyfriend\u2019s car she literally said \u201cI didn\u2019t know girls could do that, that\u2019s so cool!\u201d","human_ref_B":"The reason it's so exciting to witness new physical traits in our leadership isn't because they actually matter, but because historically a majority of people thought they did. For example I see both men and women as equally capable of strong leadership. But for most of history, most people didn't. Even today, many people see women as incapable of it. So seeing a woman in the role of VP is proof that people are changing their mind. It's the idea of our culture seeing me as equally capable that is exciting, not the specific person that got elected. So you ask why it's important. Because it demonstrates to our fellow Americans who aren't white men, that we respect their ability to lead as much as anyone else. That's new.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1569.0,"score_ratio":1.3636363636} {"post_id":"jroh35","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: We give way to much attention to what a candidate looks like and base our vote too heavily on appearance. It has led to a precedent of counting the \"firsts\" - first black POTUS, first black\/woman VP, etc., which is distracting from what truly matters and undermines the equality we strive for. Full disclosure, I'm a natural born white American male -- the historically most privileged demographic in my country's history. I'm a born engineer; I'm logical, analytical, and perhaps emotionally stunted. I want to accentuate that last part, as that's the reason I'm posting this today. I can't think of a single instance I've felt proud of another solely because they looked like me, nor does it jive with my opinion of the way the world should work. My (white) girlfriend is much more emotionally intelligent than I am when it comes to connecting with and understanding other people. After the race was called for Biden, she expressed overwhelmingly that Harris's election to the Vice Presidency is emotionally significant for her because of finally having female representation elected to the White House. I asked her why it mattered and we went back and forth with point\/counterpoint until she ultimately changed her mind. Following that, there are lots of news reports singling out specific demographics as responsible for the Biden\/Harris election. The most obvious example is the thanking of black women who as a demographic overwhelmingly, though not unanimously, voted for Biden. Admittedly, I haven't sought out specific or exact numbers, but I've sought enough information to speak generically and make essential arguments. To thank any single specific demographic for this election undermines the equality we are striving for by focusing on aspects of people which *do not transfer* to ideology with enough correlation to vote blindly for a candidate. For example, without the white vote, Biden doesn't win election - period...but the same *is true* for black women, *and* the fractions of other demographics that voted for Biden. It's a coalition and we got here together *and only together.* Remove *any* demographic from Biden's votes and *he does not win.* Stacey Abrams should be individually celebrated for obvious reasons, her activism is directly responsible for registering hundreds of thousands of previously unregistered voters. You'd be hard-pressed to hear me disagree with her significance to Georgia, the Biden campaign, or the future of our country. She is a born leader who I would be proud to have represent me; I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. However, this gave rise to the narrative that we should *thank* the newly registered voters for delivering the election, and I think this is a logically dangerous argument because of its retroactive implications. Celebrate and thank Stacey Abrams, yes, her activism brought people to their duty to our country, but it's a slippery slope to thanking and blaming people who didn't, for whatever reason, register themselves prior. It would be wrong to blame the previously unregistered for the election of Trump and it logically follows that it would be wrong to thank the same group for the election of Biden. I'm glad they have joined our coalition, but they are absorbed into the whole and not separately responsible for the outcome of this or any other election. One of the GF's facebook friends argue passionately that Harris's election matters because she feels that female legislators would better represent and legislate for her values as a women , specifically for women's health, right to abortion\/autonomy, etc. By this logic, I should never vote for a woman as they would not represent who I am as a man and would be \"unqualified\" to legislate for men's health, etc., which is an argument I find patently ridiculous. It's not at all difficult to find a few examples of congresswomen or elected female officials who are ideologically against abortion while also finding old white men adamantly in favor of a woman's right to autonomy. And such is the crux of my argument - electing someone based on *what* they are (race, gender) instead of *who* they are (personality) and what they *believe* (ideology) is a flawed concept that flies in the face of what it means to be truly equal. The idea that it is *necessary* that country elects more POC or to advocate against a candidate because they are an old white guy without considering their ideologies is fundamentally flawed. What is necessary is we elect candidates who consider and legislate in the interest of *all* of their constituents while understanding that it is *impossible* for an elected official physically represent more than a subsection of their constituents. I also recently had seen John McCain's concession speech to President Obama, which is incredibly moving if you haven't watched it. In it, he acknowledges the significance of the election of an African American to the White House, that the demographic must be proud, and that night was theirs to celebrate. I voted for Obama and it wasn't because he was a black man poised to make history, but John McCain's speech made me second-guess myself again, although I remain firm that while it was notable it was not actually significant. McCain suggested in that speech that Obama's election was evidence of how far we've come in racial division. The events of the last four years prove he was wrong to take his assumption that far, as our society continues to be poisoned by white supremacy and an absolute chasm between ideologies. I would say McCain's assertion is only accurate for the democratic party, whos elected officials are *roughly* as diverse and representative of their actual constituents, but I digress. While I can sympathize with the emotional significance Obama's election had for the black American community in a historical sense, in a \"rags to riches\" sense, from an enslaved-population-to-one-which-helps-decide-the-direction-for-all-Americans sense, I think we can all agree now that Obama's skin color had little effect on the policy he implemented or the way he led and governed, which is evidence of the fact that while a true representation of our country would inevitably elect a black man and *will* inevitably elect a woman, it is not necessary nor appropriate to do so specifically for the notion that we as a nation are not well represented until we do so. What shapes a person as they grow and mature is undeniably tied to their demographic. Their life experiences will be different and that will inform different beliefs and behaviors. Obama and Harris were, of course, shaped by being black in American society. Their ideologies are a byproduct of their upbringing and life experiences, but it would be wrong to suggest they have similar ideologies *because they are black.* I consider myself to have similar ideologies to either of them, and I am not black nor did my upbringing or life experiences look anything like either of theirs. The point is that while our demographics help to shape who we become because of our interactions with the world, they don't unilaterally define our ideologies. What matters is what ideology a candidate passionately represents and not especially how they arrived at it through the course of their lives. This would also imply that a candidate who updates their ideologies in the face of new information is a better candidate than one which does not. If a candidate voted for a bill two decades ago which disproportionately affected a demographic, but today they advocate for reform of that same bill in recognition of the effect it had on that demographic, it would be wrong to define that person by an ideology they no longer support (I know this seems to allude to Biden\/1994 crime bill, but I don't want to pigeonhole the argument and I don't know enough details of that situation to argue competently, nor am I taking a stance on anything Biden did then or will do in the future). So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even *as much* \\- about what our representation looks like instead of what they believe? Why should the news headlines care about a 'first' anything - first black president, first black\/woman VP, first second gentlemen, first Jewish spouse in the White House -- doesn't this belong in a tabloid? Why is it appropriate to put so much emotional stock in these various aspects of a candidate which, while correlated, don't define a person's ideology? Why is it appropriate to publicly recognize only a small subsect of a voting bloc when the absence of *any* subsect of that voting bloc would sink their candidate? What matters is policy and ideology, full stop. The rest is superficial and it's distracting and harmful to the quality of our democracy to place so much importance on it.","c_root_id_A":"gbufn6d","c_root_id_B":"gbukjoc","created_at_utc_A":1605028472,"created_at_utc_B":1605030733,"score_A":7,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Whether race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc., are superficial characteristics or not is irrelevant, because they are characteristics upon which society judges and categorizes individuals. In a democracy, these groups need proportionate representation to have their concerns addressed by the powers that be. It's easy for you to question why immutable yet superficial characteristics matter as a white guy because it doesn't affect you personally. But it affects other people. And ignoring that, overlooking that, does not and cannot *ever* address the genuine consequences of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, etc. In fact, I'm not quite sure what your view here is beyond paying lip service to color-blindness in a color-conscious world.","human_ref_B":"The reason it's so exciting to witness new physical traits in our leadership isn't because they actually matter, but because historically a majority of people thought they did. For example I see both men and women as equally capable of strong leadership. But for most of history, most people didn't. Even today, many people see women as incapable of it. So seeing a woman in the role of VP is proof that people are changing their mind. It's the idea of our culture seeing me as equally capable that is exciting, not the specific person that got elected. So you ask why it's important. Because it demonstrates to our fellow Americans who aren't white men, that we respect their ability to lead as much as anyone else. That's new.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2261.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429} {"post_id":"jroh35","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: We give way to much attention to what a candidate looks like and base our vote too heavily on appearance. It has led to a precedent of counting the \"firsts\" - first black POTUS, first black\/woman VP, etc., which is distracting from what truly matters and undermines the equality we strive for. Full disclosure, I'm a natural born white American male -- the historically most privileged demographic in my country's history. I'm a born engineer; I'm logical, analytical, and perhaps emotionally stunted. I want to accentuate that last part, as that's the reason I'm posting this today. I can't think of a single instance I've felt proud of another solely because they looked like me, nor does it jive with my opinion of the way the world should work. My (white) girlfriend is much more emotionally intelligent than I am when it comes to connecting with and understanding other people. After the race was called for Biden, she expressed overwhelmingly that Harris's election to the Vice Presidency is emotionally significant for her because of finally having female representation elected to the White House. I asked her why it mattered and we went back and forth with point\/counterpoint until she ultimately changed her mind. Following that, there are lots of news reports singling out specific demographics as responsible for the Biden\/Harris election. The most obvious example is the thanking of black women who as a demographic overwhelmingly, though not unanimously, voted for Biden. Admittedly, I haven't sought out specific or exact numbers, but I've sought enough information to speak generically and make essential arguments. To thank any single specific demographic for this election undermines the equality we are striving for by focusing on aspects of people which *do not transfer* to ideology with enough correlation to vote blindly for a candidate. For example, without the white vote, Biden doesn't win election - period...but the same *is true* for black women, *and* the fractions of other demographics that voted for Biden. It's a coalition and we got here together *and only together.* Remove *any* demographic from Biden's votes and *he does not win.* Stacey Abrams should be individually celebrated for obvious reasons, her activism is directly responsible for registering hundreds of thousands of previously unregistered voters. You'd be hard-pressed to hear me disagree with her significance to Georgia, the Biden campaign, or the future of our country. She is a born leader who I would be proud to have represent me; I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. However, this gave rise to the narrative that we should *thank* the newly registered voters for delivering the election, and I think this is a logically dangerous argument because of its retroactive implications. Celebrate and thank Stacey Abrams, yes, her activism brought people to their duty to our country, but it's a slippery slope to thanking and blaming people who didn't, for whatever reason, register themselves prior. It would be wrong to blame the previously unregistered for the election of Trump and it logically follows that it would be wrong to thank the same group for the election of Biden. I'm glad they have joined our coalition, but they are absorbed into the whole and not separately responsible for the outcome of this or any other election. One of the GF's facebook friends argue passionately that Harris's election matters because she feels that female legislators would better represent and legislate for her values as a women , specifically for women's health, right to abortion\/autonomy, etc. By this logic, I should never vote for a woman as they would not represent who I am as a man and would be \"unqualified\" to legislate for men's health, etc., which is an argument I find patently ridiculous. It's not at all difficult to find a few examples of congresswomen or elected female officials who are ideologically against abortion while also finding old white men adamantly in favor of a woman's right to autonomy. And such is the crux of my argument - electing someone based on *what* they are (race, gender) instead of *who* they are (personality) and what they *believe* (ideology) is a flawed concept that flies in the face of what it means to be truly equal. The idea that it is *necessary* that country elects more POC or to advocate against a candidate because they are an old white guy without considering their ideologies is fundamentally flawed. What is necessary is we elect candidates who consider and legislate in the interest of *all* of their constituents while understanding that it is *impossible* for an elected official physically represent more than a subsection of their constituents. I also recently had seen John McCain's concession speech to President Obama, which is incredibly moving if you haven't watched it. In it, he acknowledges the significance of the election of an African American to the White House, that the demographic must be proud, and that night was theirs to celebrate. I voted for Obama and it wasn't because he was a black man poised to make history, but John McCain's speech made me second-guess myself again, although I remain firm that while it was notable it was not actually significant. McCain suggested in that speech that Obama's election was evidence of how far we've come in racial division. The events of the last four years prove he was wrong to take his assumption that far, as our society continues to be poisoned by white supremacy and an absolute chasm between ideologies. I would say McCain's assertion is only accurate for the democratic party, whos elected officials are *roughly* as diverse and representative of their actual constituents, but I digress. While I can sympathize with the emotional significance Obama's election had for the black American community in a historical sense, in a \"rags to riches\" sense, from an enslaved-population-to-one-which-helps-decide-the-direction-for-all-Americans sense, I think we can all agree now that Obama's skin color had little effect on the policy he implemented or the way he led and governed, which is evidence of the fact that while a true representation of our country would inevitably elect a black man and *will* inevitably elect a woman, it is not necessary nor appropriate to do so specifically for the notion that we as a nation are not well represented until we do so. What shapes a person as they grow and mature is undeniably tied to their demographic. Their life experiences will be different and that will inform different beliefs and behaviors. Obama and Harris were, of course, shaped by being black in American society. Their ideologies are a byproduct of their upbringing and life experiences, but it would be wrong to suggest they have similar ideologies *because they are black.* I consider myself to have similar ideologies to either of them, and I am not black nor did my upbringing or life experiences look anything like either of theirs. The point is that while our demographics help to shape who we become because of our interactions with the world, they don't unilaterally define our ideologies. What matters is what ideology a candidate passionately represents and not especially how they arrived at it through the course of their lives. This would also imply that a candidate who updates their ideologies in the face of new information is a better candidate than one which does not. If a candidate voted for a bill two decades ago which disproportionately affected a demographic, but today they advocate for reform of that same bill in recognition of the effect it had on that demographic, it would be wrong to define that person by an ideology they no longer support (I know this seems to allude to Biden\/1994 crime bill, but I don't want to pigeonhole the argument and I don't know enough details of that situation to argue competently, nor am I taking a stance on anything Biden did then or will do in the future). So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even *as much* \\- about what our representation looks like instead of what they believe? Why should the news headlines care about a 'first' anything - first black president, first black\/woman VP, first second gentlemen, first Jewish spouse in the White House -- doesn't this belong in a tabloid? Why is it appropriate to put so much emotional stock in these various aspects of a candidate which, while correlated, don't define a person's ideology? Why is it appropriate to publicly recognize only a small subsect of a voting bloc when the absence of *any* subsect of that voting bloc would sink their candidate? What matters is policy and ideology, full stop. The rest is superficial and it's distracting and harmful to the quality of our democracy to place so much importance on it.","c_root_id_A":"gbuh50u","c_root_id_B":"gbufn6d","created_at_utc_A":1605029164,"created_at_utc_B":1605028472,"score_A":11,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even *as much* \\- about what our representation looks like instead of what they believe? Why should the news headlines care about a 'first' anything - first black president, first black\/woman VP, first second gentlemen, first Jewish spouse in the White House -- doesn't this belong in a tabloid? Is there really no where in between caring equally about what our representation believes and looks like and relegating news of the first female and first person of colour to ever be elected to the office of Vice President to the tabloids? I\u2019m not American but I would vote for Bernie Sanders over say Sarah Palin or Ben Carson in every instance (I can\u2019t think of a particularly right wing WOC). However people with different backgrounds bring different perspectives and there\u2019s no real risk of the white males perspective being lost in politics anytime soon. I like to think I\u2019m well informed about racism but as a white women I\u2019ve never experienced I can\u2019t tackle it with the nuance of someone that has. Women who have experienced workplace sexual harassment are uniquely able to express ideas to decrease instances and improve company responses. This I\u2019ve experienced this first hand. I work in industry, we had a supervisors meeting specifically about that issue. There were roughly twenty of us, three women. The men that did speak up all basically said I don\u2019t think it\u2019s an issue here I haven\u2019t seen it or had it reported to me. The three of us suggested ways to make people more comfortable coming forward. After our ideas were implemented more women came forward. There\u2019s also just the benefits of representation as a white man you probably grew up seeing being president as something you could do one day. Vice President Elect Harris just showed a generation of girls that they can be in the White House when they grow up. President Obama showed children of colour that they could and that matters. Another personal example when my little cousin watched my fix my now ex boyfriend\u2019s car she literally said \u201cI didn\u2019t know girls could do that, that\u2019s so cool!\u201d","human_ref_B":"Whether race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc., are superficial characteristics or not is irrelevant, because they are characteristics upon which society judges and categorizes individuals. In a democracy, these groups need proportionate representation to have their concerns addressed by the powers that be. It's easy for you to question why immutable yet superficial characteristics matter as a white guy because it doesn't affect you personally. But it affects other people. And ignoring that, overlooking that, does not and cannot *ever* address the genuine consequences of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, etc. In fact, I'm not quite sure what your view here is beyond paying lip service to color-blindness in a color-conscious world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":692.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714} {"post_id":"jroh35","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: We give way to much attention to what a candidate looks like and base our vote too heavily on appearance. It has led to a precedent of counting the \"firsts\" - first black POTUS, first black\/woman VP, etc., which is distracting from what truly matters and undermines the equality we strive for. Full disclosure, I'm a natural born white American male -- the historically most privileged demographic in my country's history. I'm a born engineer; I'm logical, analytical, and perhaps emotionally stunted. I want to accentuate that last part, as that's the reason I'm posting this today. I can't think of a single instance I've felt proud of another solely because they looked like me, nor does it jive with my opinion of the way the world should work. My (white) girlfriend is much more emotionally intelligent than I am when it comes to connecting with and understanding other people. After the race was called for Biden, she expressed overwhelmingly that Harris's election to the Vice Presidency is emotionally significant for her because of finally having female representation elected to the White House. I asked her why it mattered and we went back and forth with point\/counterpoint until she ultimately changed her mind. Following that, there are lots of news reports singling out specific demographics as responsible for the Biden\/Harris election. The most obvious example is the thanking of black women who as a demographic overwhelmingly, though not unanimously, voted for Biden. Admittedly, I haven't sought out specific or exact numbers, but I've sought enough information to speak generically and make essential arguments. To thank any single specific demographic for this election undermines the equality we are striving for by focusing on aspects of people which *do not transfer* to ideology with enough correlation to vote blindly for a candidate. For example, without the white vote, Biden doesn't win election - period...but the same *is true* for black women, *and* the fractions of other demographics that voted for Biden. It's a coalition and we got here together *and only together.* Remove *any* demographic from Biden's votes and *he does not win.* Stacey Abrams should be individually celebrated for obvious reasons, her activism is directly responsible for registering hundreds of thousands of previously unregistered voters. You'd be hard-pressed to hear me disagree with her significance to Georgia, the Biden campaign, or the future of our country. She is a born leader who I would be proud to have represent me; I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. However, this gave rise to the narrative that we should *thank* the newly registered voters for delivering the election, and I think this is a logically dangerous argument because of its retroactive implications. Celebrate and thank Stacey Abrams, yes, her activism brought people to their duty to our country, but it's a slippery slope to thanking and blaming people who didn't, for whatever reason, register themselves prior. It would be wrong to blame the previously unregistered for the election of Trump and it logically follows that it would be wrong to thank the same group for the election of Biden. I'm glad they have joined our coalition, but they are absorbed into the whole and not separately responsible for the outcome of this or any other election. One of the GF's facebook friends argue passionately that Harris's election matters because she feels that female legislators would better represent and legislate for her values as a women , specifically for women's health, right to abortion\/autonomy, etc. By this logic, I should never vote for a woman as they would not represent who I am as a man and would be \"unqualified\" to legislate for men's health, etc., which is an argument I find patently ridiculous. It's not at all difficult to find a few examples of congresswomen or elected female officials who are ideologically against abortion while also finding old white men adamantly in favor of a woman's right to autonomy. And such is the crux of my argument - electing someone based on *what* they are (race, gender) instead of *who* they are (personality) and what they *believe* (ideology) is a flawed concept that flies in the face of what it means to be truly equal. The idea that it is *necessary* that country elects more POC or to advocate against a candidate because they are an old white guy without considering their ideologies is fundamentally flawed. What is necessary is we elect candidates who consider and legislate in the interest of *all* of their constituents while understanding that it is *impossible* for an elected official physically represent more than a subsection of their constituents. I also recently had seen John McCain's concession speech to President Obama, which is incredibly moving if you haven't watched it. In it, he acknowledges the significance of the election of an African American to the White House, that the demographic must be proud, and that night was theirs to celebrate. I voted for Obama and it wasn't because he was a black man poised to make history, but John McCain's speech made me second-guess myself again, although I remain firm that while it was notable it was not actually significant. McCain suggested in that speech that Obama's election was evidence of how far we've come in racial division. The events of the last four years prove he was wrong to take his assumption that far, as our society continues to be poisoned by white supremacy and an absolute chasm between ideologies. I would say McCain's assertion is only accurate for the democratic party, whos elected officials are *roughly* as diverse and representative of their actual constituents, but I digress. While I can sympathize with the emotional significance Obama's election had for the black American community in a historical sense, in a \"rags to riches\" sense, from an enslaved-population-to-one-which-helps-decide-the-direction-for-all-Americans sense, I think we can all agree now that Obama's skin color had little effect on the policy he implemented or the way he led and governed, which is evidence of the fact that while a true representation of our country would inevitably elect a black man and *will* inevitably elect a woman, it is not necessary nor appropriate to do so specifically for the notion that we as a nation are not well represented until we do so. What shapes a person as they grow and mature is undeniably tied to their demographic. Their life experiences will be different and that will inform different beliefs and behaviors. Obama and Harris were, of course, shaped by being black in American society. Their ideologies are a byproduct of their upbringing and life experiences, but it would be wrong to suggest they have similar ideologies *because they are black.* I consider myself to have similar ideologies to either of them, and I am not black nor did my upbringing or life experiences look anything like either of theirs. The point is that while our demographics help to shape who we become because of our interactions with the world, they don't unilaterally define our ideologies. What matters is what ideology a candidate passionately represents and not especially how they arrived at it through the course of their lives. This would also imply that a candidate who updates their ideologies in the face of new information is a better candidate than one which does not. If a candidate voted for a bill two decades ago which disproportionately affected a demographic, but today they advocate for reform of that same bill in recognition of the effect it had on that demographic, it would be wrong to define that person by an ideology they no longer support (I know this seems to allude to Biden\/1994 crime bill, but I don't want to pigeonhole the argument and I don't know enough details of that situation to argue competently, nor am I taking a stance on anything Biden did then or will do in the future). So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even *as much* \\- about what our representation looks like instead of what they believe? Why should the news headlines care about a 'first' anything - first black president, first black\/woman VP, first second gentlemen, first Jewish spouse in the White House -- doesn't this belong in a tabloid? Why is it appropriate to put so much emotional stock in these various aspects of a candidate which, while correlated, don't define a person's ideology? Why is it appropriate to publicly recognize only a small subsect of a voting bloc when the absence of *any* subsect of that voting bloc would sink their candidate? What matters is policy and ideology, full stop. The rest is superficial and it's distracting and harmful to the quality of our democracy to place so much importance on it.","c_root_id_A":"gbuz9kz","c_root_id_B":"gbumxiu","created_at_utc_A":1605037582,"created_at_utc_B":1605031843,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Hi OP, would you be open to reading way more about why representations matter? I mean like a 200 pg book. If so then I would recommend 'Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men' by Caroline Criado Perez. It is a fascinating book that explains with examples and research why excluding women from data and leadership harm other women. And this is just one book analyzing data on women. There may be others on race. That being said, I will try to argue why representations matter in almost all aspects. Let's think a profession: plumber. In your mind, you are imagining a male by default. But let's say that there is a female plumber in your area and you hired her, and you have a 3-year-old. Now in his or her mind, a plumber can be female or male. Sometimes the emotional response to these situations is not that it is first, but the impact it can have on their kids or sometimes lamenting how seeing someone like them on-screen or positions of power would have affected their childhood.","human_ref_B":"For me, it is less about minorities being the only ones capable of legislating and understanding minorities interests. White men are _capable_ of understanding those needs and interests (as I believe Biden does) and people from under privileged groups are _capable_ of not understanding those needs (think sarah palin). So for me, their beliefs and policy proposals always come first, which is why I didn\u2019t vote for McCain even though he had a woman on the ticket. What it\u2019s more about - for me at least - is the representation for our children. I\u2019m a firm believer that socialization shapes the world, and shapes individuals, more then any other force. I want to see _all_ people reach their full potential. I want the best doctors from among the whole population, not the best doctors from among straight white men and the few minorities that break through. Same for teachers, engineers, artists, scientists and \u2014 politicians. I rejoice knowing that my niece will grow up seeing something I did not - a person who looks like her in the White House and the knowledge that it\u2019s possible for her to achieve the same. I rejoice knowing that my nephew will grow up with something my brother did not - respecting the authority and power of a woman of color in the second highest office in the nation. It may seem insignificant, but I don\u2019t believe it is. So while policy comes first for me, I can\u2019t help but be excited for our children and excited for our nation and excited that as we progress further and further, more and more people will be socialized to understand that their race, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, etc. is not something that inherently prevents them from achieving greatness. I am excited to have that best doctor from among the entire population, not just white men. I am excited for the advancements it means for individuals and for society.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5739.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"jroh35","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: We give way to much attention to what a candidate looks like and base our vote too heavily on appearance. It has led to a precedent of counting the \"firsts\" - first black POTUS, first black\/woman VP, etc., which is distracting from what truly matters and undermines the equality we strive for. Full disclosure, I'm a natural born white American male -- the historically most privileged demographic in my country's history. I'm a born engineer; I'm logical, analytical, and perhaps emotionally stunted. I want to accentuate that last part, as that's the reason I'm posting this today. I can't think of a single instance I've felt proud of another solely because they looked like me, nor does it jive with my opinion of the way the world should work. My (white) girlfriend is much more emotionally intelligent than I am when it comes to connecting with and understanding other people. After the race was called for Biden, she expressed overwhelmingly that Harris's election to the Vice Presidency is emotionally significant for her because of finally having female representation elected to the White House. I asked her why it mattered and we went back and forth with point\/counterpoint until she ultimately changed her mind. Following that, there are lots of news reports singling out specific demographics as responsible for the Biden\/Harris election. The most obvious example is the thanking of black women who as a demographic overwhelmingly, though not unanimously, voted for Biden. Admittedly, I haven't sought out specific or exact numbers, but I've sought enough information to speak generically and make essential arguments. To thank any single specific demographic for this election undermines the equality we are striving for by focusing on aspects of people which *do not transfer* to ideology with enough correlation to vote blindly for a candidate. For example, without the white vote, Biden doesn't win election - period...but the same *is true* for black women, *and* the fractions of other demographics that voted for Biden. It's a coalition and we got here together *and only together.* Remove *any* demographic from Biden's votes and *he does not win.* Stacey Abrams should be individually celebrated for obvious reasons, her activism is directly responsible for registering hundreds of thousands of previously unregistered voters. You'd be hard-pressed to hear me disagree with her significance to Georgia, the Biden campaign, or the future of our country. She is a born leader who I would be proud to have represent me; I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. However, this gave rise to the narrative that we should *thank* the newly registered voters for delivering the election, and I think this is a logically dangerous argument because of its retroactive implications. Celebrate and thank Stacey Abrams, yes, her activism brought people to their duty to our country, but it's a slippery slope to thanking and blaming people who didn't, for whatever reason, register themselves prior. It would be wrong to blame the previously unregistered for the election of Trump and it logically follows that it would be wrong to thank the same group for the election of Biden. I'm glad they have joined our coalition, but they are absorbed into the whole and not separately responsible for the outcome of this or any other election. One of the GF's facebook friends argue passionately that Harris's election matters because she feels that female legislators would better represent and legislate for her values as a women , specifically for women's health, right to abortion\/autonomy, etc. By this logic, I should never vote for a woman as they would not represent who I am as a man and would be \"unqualified\" to legislate for men's health, etc., which is an argument I find patently ridiculous. It's not at all difficult to find a few examples of congresswomen or elected female officials who are ideologically against abortion while also finding old white men adamantly in favor of a woman's right to autonomy. And such is the crux of my argument - electing someone based on *what* they are (race, gender) instead of *who* they are (personality) and what they *believe* (ideology) is a flawed concept that flies in the face of what it means to be truly equal. The idea that it is *necessary* that country elects more POC or to advocate against a candidate because they are an old white guy without considering their ideologies is fundamentally flawed. What is necessary is we elect candidates who consider and legislate in the interest of *all* of their constituents while understanding that it is *impossible* for an elected official physically represent more than a subsection of their constituents. I also recently had seen John McCain's concession speech to President Obama, which is incredibly moving if you haven't watched it. In it, he acknowledges the significance of the election of an African American to the White House, that the demographic must be proud, and that night was theirs to celebrate. I voted for Obama and it wasn't because he was a black man poised to make history, but John McCain's speech made me second-guess myself again, although I remain firm that while it was notable it was not actually significant. McCain suggested in that speech that Obama's election was evidence of how far we've come in racial division. The events of the last four years prove he was wrong to take his assumption that far, as our society continues to be poisoned by white supremacy and an absolute chasm between ideologies. I would say McCain's assertion is only accurate for the democratic party, whos elected officials are *roughly* as diverse and representative of their actual constituents, but I digress. While I can sympathize with the emotional significance Obama's election had for the black American community in a historical sense, in a \"rags to riches\" sense, from an enslaved-population-to-one-which-helps-decide-the-direction-for-all-Americans sense, I think we can all agree now that Obama's skin color had little effect on the policy he implemented or the way he led and governed, which is evidence of the fact that while a true representation of our country would inevitably elect a black man and *will* inevitably elect a woman, it is not necessary nor appropriate to do so specifically for the notion that we as a nation are not well represented until we do so. What shapes a person as they grow and mature is undeniably tied to their demographic. Their life experiences will be different and that will inform different beliefs and behaviors. Obama and Harris were, of course, shaped by being black in American society. Their ideologies are a byproduct of their upbringing and life experiences, but it would be wrong to suggest they have similar ideologies *because they are black.* I consider myself to have similar ideologies to either of them, and I am not black nor did my upbringing or life experiences look anything like either of theirs. The point is that while our demographics help to shape who we become because of our interactions with the world, they don't unilaterally define our ideologies. What matters is what ideology a candidate passionately represents and not especially how they arrived at it through the course of their lives. This would also imply that a candidate who updates their ideologies in the face of new information is a better candidate than one which does not. If a candidate voted for a bill two decades ago which disproportionately affected a demographic, but today they advocate for reform of that same bill in recognition of the effect it had on that demographic, it would be wrong to define that person by an ideology they no longer support (I know this seems to allude to Biden\/1994 crime bill, but I don't want to pigeonhole the argument and I don't know enough details of that situation to argue competently, nor am I taking a stance on anything Biden did then or will do in the future). So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even *as much* \\- about what our representation looks like instead of what they believe? Why should the news headlines care about a 'first' anything - first black president, first black\/woman VP, first second gentlemen, first Jewish spouse in the White House -- doesn't this belong in a tabloid? Why is it appropriate to put so much emotional stock in these various aspects of a candidate which, while correlated, don't define a person's ideology? Why is it appropriate to publicly recognize only a small subsect of a voting bloc when the absence of *any* subsect of that voting bloc would sink their candidate? What matters is policy and ideology, full stop. The rest is superficial and it's distracting and harmful to the quality of our democracy to place so much importance on it.","c_root_id_A":"gbv166e","c_root_id_B":"gbvajbg","created_at_utc_A":1605038491,"created_at_utc_B":1605043002,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Well, just consider the flipside argument. If it doesn't matter that we have our first female VP, then that also means that it doesn't matter that all of the previous VPs have been male, right? Someone could point out \"look at how all of these presidents are white and male\", and your response to that would be, \"it doesn't matter if white men are always at the top\". Is that your real point though?","human_ref_B":"If your aren't voting by race, and instead voting by ideology, you would expect the racial divide to be roughly equal to the population at large (give or take variance since only so many people can be elected). If the population as a whole is voting on the basis of race, you would expect to see racially skewed winners. This second state of affairs describes most us history, namely white men being almost exclusively the only people to govern until relatively recently. Seeing non white men in positions of power, is indicative that the first state of affairs might be actualizing, that we are no longer trapped in that second state of affairs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4511.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"jroh35","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: We give way to much attention to what a candidate looks like and base our vote too heavily on appearance. It has led to a precedent of counting the \"firsts\" - first black POTUS, first black\/woman VP, etc., which is distracting from what truly matters and undermines the equality we strive for. Full disclosure, I'm a natural born white American male -- the historically most privileged demographic in my country's history. I'm a born engineer; I'm logical, analytical, and perhaps emotionally stunted. I want to accentuate that last part, as that's the reason I'm posting this today. I can't think of a single instance I've felt proud of another solely because they looked like me, nor does it jive with my opinion of the way the world should work. My (white) girlfriend is much more emotionally intelligent than I am when it comes to connecting with and understanding other people. After the race was called for Biden, she expressed overwhelmingly that Harris's election to the Vice Presidency is emotionally significant for her because of finally having female representation elected to the White House. I asked her why it mattered and we went back and forth with point\/counterpoint until she ultimately changed her mind. Following that, there are lots of news reports singling out specific demographics as responsible for the Biden\/Harris election. The most obvious example is the thanking of black women who as a demographic overwhelmingly, though not unanimously, voted for Biden. Admittedly, I haven't sought out specific or exact numbers, but I've sought enough information to speak generically and make essential arguments. To thank any single specific demographic for this election undermines the equality we are striving for by focusing on aspects of people which *do not transfer* to ideology with enough correlation to vote blindly for a candidate. For example, without the white vote, Biden doesn't win election - period...but the same *is true* for black women, *and* the fractions of other demographics that voted for Biden. It's a coalition and we got here together *and only together.* Remove *any* demographic from Biden's votes and *he does not win.* Stacey Abrams should be individually celebrated for obvious reasons, her activism is directly responsible for registering hundreds of thousands of previously unregistered voters. You'd be hard-pressed to hear me disagree with her significance to Georgia, the Biden campaign, or the future of our country. She is a born leader who I would be proud to have represent me; I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. However, this gave rise to the narrative that we should *thank* the newly registered voters for delivering the election, and I think this is a logically dangerous argument because of its retroactive implications. Celebrate and thank Stacey Abrams, yes, her activism brought people to their duty to our country, but it's a slippery slope to thanking and blaming people who didn't, for whatever reason, register themselves prior. It would be wrong to blame the previously unregistered for the election of Trump and it logically follows that it would be wrong to thank the same group for the election of Biden. I'm glad they have joined our coalition, but they are absorbed into the whole and not separately responsible for the outcome of this or any other election. One of the GF's facebook friends argue passionately that Harris's election matters because she feels that female legislators would better represent and legislate for her values as a women , specifically for women's health, right to abortion\/autonomy, etc. By this logic, I should never vote for a woman as they would not represent who I am as a man and would be \"unqualified\" to legislate for men's health, etc., which is an argument I find patently ridiculous. It's not at all difficult to find a few examples of congresswomen or elected female officials who are ideologically against abortion while also finding old white men adamantly in favor of a woman's right to autonomy. And such is the crux of my argument - electing someone based on *what* they are (race, gender) instead of *who* they are (personality) and what they *believe* (ideology) is a flawed concept that flies in the face of what it means to be truly equal. The idea that it is *necessary* that country elects more POC or to advocate against a candidate because they are an old white guy without considering their ideologies is fundamentally flawed. What is necessary is we elect candidates who consider and legislate in the interest of *all* of their constituents while understanding that it is *impossible* for an elected official physically represent more than a subsection of their constituents. I also recently had seen John McCain's concession speech to President Obama, which is incredibly moving if you haven't watched it. In it, he acknowledges the significance of the election of an African American to the White House, that the demographic must be proud, and that night was theirs to celebrate. I voted for Obama and it wasn't because he was a black man poised to make history, but John McCain's speech made me second-guess myself again, although I remain firm that while it was notable it was not actually significant. McCain suggested in that speech that Obama's election was evidence of how far we've come in racial division. The events of the last four years prove he was wrong to take his assumption that far, as our society continues to be poisoned by white supremacy and an absolute chasm between ideologies. I would say McCain's assertion is only accurate for the democratic party, whos elected officials are *roughly* as diverse and representative of their actual constituents, but I digress. While I can sympathize with the emotional significance Obama's election had for the black American community in a historical sense, in a \"rags to riches\" sense, from an enslaved-population-to-one-which-helps-decide-the-direction-for-all-Americans sense, I think we can all agree now that Obama's skin color had little effect on the policy he implemented or the way he led and governed, which is evidence of the fact that while a true representation of our country would inevitably elect a black man and *will* inevitably elect a woman, it is not necessary nor appropriate to do so specifically for the notion that we as a nation are not well represented until we do so. What shapes a person as they grow and mature is undeniably tied to their demographic. Their life experiences will be different and that will inform different beliefs and behaviors. Obama and Harris were, of course, shaped by being black in American society. Their ideologies are a byproduct of their upbringing and life experiences, but it would be wrong to suggest they have similar ideologies *because they are black.* I consider myself to have similar ideologies to either of them, and I am not black nor did my upbringing or life experiences look anything like either of theirs. The point is that while our demographics help to shape who we become because of our interactions with the world, they don't unilaterally define our ideologies. What matters is what ideology a candidate passionately represents and not especially how they arrived at it through the course of their lives. This would also imply that a candidate who updates their ideologies in the face of new information is a better candidate than one which does not. If a candidate voted for a bill two decades ago which disproportionately affected a demographic, but today they advocate for reform of that same bill in recognition of the effect it had on that demographic, it would be wrong to define that person by an ideology they no longer support (I know this seems to allude to Biden\/1994 crime bill, but I don't want to pigeonhole the argument and I don't know enough details of that situation to argue competently, nor am I taking a stance on anything Biden did then or will do in the future). So, change my view: Why is it important that we care more - or even *as much* \\- about what our representation looks like instead of what they believe? Why should the news headlines care about a 'first' anything - first black president, first black\/woman VP, first second gentlemen, first Jewish spouse in the White House -- doesn't this belong in a tabloid? Why is it appropriate to put so much emotional stock in these various aspects of a candidate which, while correlated, don't define a person's ideology? Why is it appropriate to publicly recognize only a small subsect of a voting bloc when the absence of *any* subsect of that voting bloc would sink their candidate? What matters is policy and ideology, full stop. The rest is superficial and it's distracting and harmful to the quality of our democracy to place so much importance on it.","c_root_id_A":"gbv166e","c_root_id_B":"gc1lvr4","created_at_utc_A":1605038491,"created_at_utc_B":1605189221,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Well, just consider the flipside argument. If it doesn't matter that we have our first female VP, then that also means that it doesn't matter that all of the previous VPs have been male, right? Someone could point out \"look at how all of these presidents are white and male\", and your response to that would be, \"it doesn't matter if white men are always at the top\". Is that your real point though?","human_ref_B":"Sorry, that this comes a little late but I think you\u2019re being a bit narrow minded and this post shows that you truly don\u2019t understand the perspective of minorities. First off, you know why being the first of something is so important. I assume that you\u2019ve heard of diminishing returns. Where the first event gives the greatest return but as it continues you get less and less from it. This is similar in that, the first black president was very significant. If the next 20 presidents were black then it would no longer be so significant. An example is how everyone knows that George Washington is the first president of the US. But damn if anyone remembers McKinley (I certainly don\u2019t). Also, racism isn\u2019t necessarily direct. When I think of racism, gravity is the first thing that comes to mind. We\u2019re operating under a gravity 2x or 3x stronger. You can\u2019t really see it other than how it affects us. You likely wouldn\u2019t even notice it if you weren\u2019t around people who are affected by it. It\u2019s not just being called slurs and facing prejudice. It\u2019s also seeing others just like us being killed for no reason at all, while people like you do the same things and get a slap on the shoulder. These things add to that gravity. So when we see someone just like us succeed, some of that gravity is lifted because we feel like we might have a chance to not be treated unfairly. It\u2019s not just policy and ideology that matter. Your background can also inspire those from similar places to be better. I also feel that you\u2019re making some assumption that we can\u2019t care about both. Just because someone is a woman or is black doesn\u2019t mean I\u2019m going to support them if they have terrible policies. Why would I want the first black woman in office to be a bad one? Sorry, last thing is that racism is partly a result of not having contact or familiarity with a certain group. If you\u2019ve never been around black people then you likely don\u2019t understand black culture and many people see being different as being wrong. The same applies for any other cultures and minorities. Having a diverse body in politics normalizes seeing people of all minorities as leaders and role models, especially on younger children and teens, hopefully helping to eradicate racism at the roots.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":150730.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h4zvipr","c_root_id_B":"h502whj","created_at_utc_A":1626145185,"created_at_utc_B":1626149652,"score_A":17,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I actually agree that a lot of futurists (e.g., Ray Kurzweil) tend to be too optimistic in their timelines of human immortality, via biological enhancement, the singularity, or any other way. However, I fail to see how this is detrimental to progress in any way. I basically see them as educated wagers, which is all we can do at this time. How does this undermine the scientific pursuit of these technologies if some informed people\u2019s prognostications are bit earlier than ours?","human_ref_B":"So Cyperpunk had to be named Cyberpunk 2077 cause it was supposed to take place in 2020 (It was published in 1988) While it's hilarious to look back at many things in the book (For instance we were all supposed to have cyberlimbs right now and neural jacks) it's important to look at thing the book see what they got wrong, in Cyberpunk you could buys mini cd players held 99 songs, cellphones that work up to 3 miles out of major cities, and giant tubed television. Tech like the iPhone seem impossible, and the concept of instagram or Youtube were impossible. All I'm saying we are unsure what problem will be easy and what problem will be hard.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4467.0,"score_ratio":1.2352941176} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h4zvhz1","c_root_id_B":"h502whj","created_at_utc_A":1626145174,"created_at_utc_B":1626149652,"score_A":10,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Most people don't realize the research is happening at all. You get no support at all if nobody knows what you are doing. Even if he turns away 99 percent of the people who hear him, 1 percent is more than 0.","human_ref_B":"So Cyperpunk had to be named Cyberpunk 2077 cause it was supposed to take place in 2020 (It was published in 1988) While it's hilarious to look back at many things in the book (For instance we were all supposed to have cyberlimbs right now and neural jacks) it's important to look at thing the book see what they got wrong, in Cyberpunk you could buys mini cd players held 99 songs, cellphones that work up to 3 miles out of major cities, and giant tubed television. Tech like the iPhone seem impossible, and the concept of instagram or Youtube were impossible. All I'm saying we are unsure what problem will be easy and what problem will be hard.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4478.0,"score_ratio":2.1} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h4zvd1e","c_root_id_B":"h502whj","created_at_utc_A":1626145096,"created_at_utc_B":1626149652,"score_A":4,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Shoot for the stars and you might reach the moon. What's the point in trying to get people excited about immortality tech that won't be ready until after they die? Maybe you're right, maybe it won't be ready in 20 years. But 20 years is a long time, and if you're a billionaire, it's a pretty good hedge to put all your money into it given that the alternative is death and therefore an unlimited harm where all your money goes to waste anyway.","human_ref_B":"So Cyperpunk had to be named Cyberpunk 2077 cause it was supposed to take place in 2020 (It was published in 1988) While it's hilarious to look back at many things in the book (For instance we were all supposed to have cyberlimbs right now and neural jacks) it's important to look at thing the book see what they got wrong, in Cyberpunk you could buys mini cd players held 99 songs, cellphones that work up to 3 miles out of major cities, and giant tubed television. Tech like the iPhone seem impossible, and the concept of instagram or Youtube were impossible. All I'm saying we are unsure what problem will be easy and what problem will be hard.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4556.0,"score_ratio":5.25} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h4zvipr","c_root_id_B":"h4zvhz1","created_at_utc_A":1626145185,"created_at_utc_B":1626145174,"score_A":17,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I actually agree that a lot of futurists (e.g., Ray Kurzweil) tend to be too optimistic in their timelines of human immortality, via biological enhancement, the singularity, or any other way. However, I fail to see how this is detrimental to progress in any way. I basically see them as educated wagers, which is all we can do at this time. How does this undermine the scientific pursuit of these technologies if some informed people\u2019s prognostications are bit earlier than ours?","human_ref_B":"Most people don't realize the research is happening at all. You get no support at all if nobody knows what you are doing. Even if he turns away 99 percent of the people who hear him, 1 percent is more than 0.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11.0,"score_ratio":1.7} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h4zvd1e","c_root_id_B":"h4zvipr","created_at_utc_A":1626145096,"created_at_utc_B":1626145185,"score_A":4,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Shoot for the stars and you might reach the moon. What's the point in trying to get people excited about immortality tech that won't be ready until after they die? Maybe you're right, maybe it won't be ready in 20 years. But 20 years is a long time, and if you're a billionaire, it's a pretty good hedge to put all your money into it given that the alternative is death and therefore an unlimited harm where all your money goes to waste anyway.","human_ref_B":"I actually agree that a lot of futurists (e.g., Ray Kurzweil) tend to be too optimistic in their timelines of human immortality, via biological enhancement, the singularity, or any other way. However, I fail to see how this is detrimental to progress in any way. I basically see them as educated wagers, which is all we can do at this time. How does this undermine the scientific pursuit of these technologies if some informed people\u2019s prognostications are bit earlier than ours?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":89.0,"score_ratio":4.25} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h50m4iu","c_root_id_B":"h4zvhz1","created_at_utc_A":1626165263,"created_at_utc_B":1626145174,"score_A":12,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime There's some selection bias in your list of examples. I once read a book called \"2030\", written in 1930, attempting to predict what the future would be like in 100 years. * It predicted we might have aircraft capable of flying at speeds of up to 800mph. The main technical difficulty, they thought, would be how to make nuclear powered engines that were light enough to fly with. They totally failed to anticipate the jet engine. * It predicted we might have landed a space craft on the moon, and gave a small chance that we might have reached Mars. They thought that the first few trips to Mars might have missed altogether due to navigation errors by the pilot, dooming the crew to hurtle through space forever. They completely failed to anticipate unmanned craft, indeed, they didn't anticipate anything whatsoever to do with computers. So, sometimes predictions of the future are wildly optimistic, other times they fall very far short of what actually happens. To evaluate what's possible, you need to not look at wild promises in unrelated areas, but look at what's actually been already accomplished in the specific area, and what is being tried. For example, we can already extend the lifespan of a nematode worm by a factor of ten, or of a mouse by a factor of two.","human_ref_B":"Most people don't realize the research is happening at all. You get no support at all if nobody knows what you are doing. Even if he turns away 99 percent of the people who hear him, 1 percent is more than 0.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20089.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h50m4iu","c_root_id_B":"h50ij6o","created_at_utc_A":1626165263,"created_at_utc_B":1626161872,"score_A":12,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime There's some selection bias in your list of examples. I once read a book called \"2030\", written in 1930, attempting to predict what the future would be like in 100 years. * It predicted we might have aircraft capable of flying at speeds of up to 800mph. The main technical difficulty, they thought, would be how to make nuclear powered engines that were light enough to fly with. They totally failed to anticipate the jet engine. * It predicted we might have landed a space craft on the moon, and gave a small chance that we might have reached Mars. They thought that the first few trips to Mars might have missed altogether due to navigation errors by the pilot, dooming the crew to hurtle through space forever. They completely failed to anticipate unmanned craft, indeed, they didn't anticipate anything whatsoever to do with computers. So, sometimes predictions of the future are wildly optimistic, other times they fall very far short of what actually happens. To evaluate what's possible, you need to not look at wild promises in unrelated areas, but look at what's actually been already accomplished in the specific area, and what is being tried. For example, we can already extend the lifespan of a nematode worm by a factor of ten, or of a mouse by a factor of two.","human_ref_B":">Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. A good way to gauge the plausibility of claims like this is to look relevant fields, and see where they where 20 years ago to get a feel for a plausible amount of development. The two that I think apply here are gene reading\/editing and computers. Twenty years ago both fields where in their relative infancy compared to today. Assuming similar levels of development, it's certainly plausible that by the 2040s we will be able to ready you genes, brute force calculate trillions of changes, figure out which will make you live longer, then apply them to you. So no, it's a perfectly plausible goal. It may not happen, but it certainly might come to pass. >We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously. Cold fusion isn't a real term, regular fusions has been making staler progress though. The test reactor in France will generate electricity and is almost complete now. Flying cars have been a thing for decades, they are called helicopters. You can do the same small scale point to point transport cars do, but while flying. And removing co2 from the air is extremely easy. That's what Co2 scrubbers do. Most of the tech 'they' have been saying we are going to have, we have. At least in one form or another. We have VR, we have brain-computer interfaces, we have space travel, we have gene editing, we have tiny super powerful computers, we have global internet.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3391.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h4zvd1e","c_root_id_B":"h50m4iu","created_at_utc_A":1626145096,"created_at_utc_B":1626165263,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Shoot for the stars and you might reach the moon. What's the point in trying to get people excited about immortality tech that won't be ready until after they die? Maybe you're right, maybe it won't be ready in 20 years. But 20 years is a long time, and if you're a billionaire, it's a pretty good hedge to put all your money into it given that the alternative is death and therefore an unlimited harm where all your money goes to waste anyway.","human_ref_B":">We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime There's some selection bias in your list of examples. I once read a book called \"2030\", written in 1930, attempting to predict what the future would be like in 100 years. * It predicted we might have aircraft capable of flying at speeds of up to 800mph. The main technical difficulty, they thought, would be how to make nuclear powered engines that were light enough to fly with. They totally failed to anticipate the jet engine. * It predicted we might have landed a space craft on the moon, and gave a small chance that we might have reached Mars. They thought that the first few trips to Mars might have missed altogether due to navigation errors by the pilot, dooming the crew to hurtle through space forever. They completely failed to anticipate unmanned craft, indeed, they didn't anticipate anything whatsoever to do with computers. So, sometimes predictions of the future are wildly optimistic, other times they fall very far short of what actually happens. To evaluate what's possible, you need to not look at wild promises in unrelated areas, but look at what's actually been already accomplished in the specific area, and what is being tried. For example, we can already extend the lifespan of a nematode worm by a factor of ten, or of a mouse by a factor of two.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20167.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h50a0pu","c_root_id_B":"h50m4iu","created_at_utc_A":1626154716,"created_at_utc_B":1626165263,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"We're going to achieve something close to it, or be capable of it, in 20 years. Laws and ethics are going to prevent it from spreading. Maybe even from being known. I fully believe that the first person that will live past 200, has already been born. While that's not immortality, it's getting closer. They're fuddle-fucking with genes on mice and making some of them age much much slower, and live much much longer. Scientists in china are making some pretty extraordinary claims for some of the manipulation they've done. A 25% increase in lifespan, currently. Which doesnt sound like a lot, but 25% of the longest mouse's lifespan, in human years, would make 160-170 years old the new maximum. That's JUST the gene they've fiddled with for long life, there's another one that they've fiddle with that slows down the ageing process in mice--extending the period at which their cells replace themselves faster than they die (the age humans hit this is usually around 24-28), by double. That would mean that, the period of your life where you're strongest, heal fastest, and feel indestructible would be pushed from your 20's to your early 50's. We could be looking, in the not too distant future, if ALLOWED, where humans reach the age of 50, or 60, before they FEEL today's 30. and living to 170-200. Immortal? No, perhaps not, but getting a person to 100, and having them feel like 50 year olds TODAY do, would be a monster chunk of progress. THOSE people may discover something equating to immortality.","human_ref_B":">We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime There's some selection bias in your list of examples. I once read a book called \"2030\", written in 1930, attempting to predict what the future would be like in 100 years. * It predicted we might have aircraft capable of flying at speeds of up to 800mph. The main technical difficulty, they thought, would be how to make nuclear powered engines that were light enough to fly with. They totally failed to anticipate the jet engine. * It predicted we might have landed a space craft on the moon, and gave a small chance that we might have reached Mars. They thought that the first few trips to Mars might have missed altogether due to navigation errors by the pilot, dooming the crew to hurtle through space forever. They completely failed to anticipate unmanned craft, indeed, they didn't anticipate anything whatsoever to do with computers. So, sometimes predictions of the future are wildly optimistic, other times they fall very far short of what actually happens. To evaluate what's possible, you need to not look at wild promises in unrelated areas, but look at what's actually been already accomplished in the specific area, and what is being tried. For example, we can already extend the lifespan of a nematode worm by a factor of ten, or of a mouse by a factor of two.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10547.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h50m4iu","c_root_id_B":"h50agkh","created_at_utc_A":1626165263,"created_at_utc_B":1626155050,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime There's some selection bias in your list of examples. I once read a book called \"2030\", written in 1930, attempting to predict what the future would be like in 100 years. * It predicted we might have aircraft capable of flying at speeds of up to 800mph. The main technical difficulty, they thought, would be how to make nuclear powered engines that were light enough to fly with. They totally failed to anticipate the jet engine. * It predicted we might have landed a space craft on the moon, and gave a small chance that we might have reached Mars. They thought that the first few trips to Mars might have missed altogether due to navigation errors by the pilot, dooming the crew to hurtle through space forever. They completely failed to anticipate unmanned craft, indeed, they didn't anticipate anything whatsoever to do with computers. So, sometimes predictions of the future are wildly optimistic, other times they fall very far short of what actually happens. To evaluate what's possible, you need to not look at wild promises in unrelated areas, but look at what's actually been already accomplished in the specific area, and what is being tried. For example, we can already extend the lifespan of a nematode worm by a factor of ten, or of a mouse by a factor of two.","human_ref_B":"I think you're underestimating people's will to live. People have been searching for immortality for a very long time. They're not going to stop if someone fails. Especially if they keep pushing the ball forward. The science of chemistry has been evolving for centuries because it's just an enormous field. These things take time. For example: The Chinese just had a major breakthrough on fusion this week and when I was a child we were taught it was impossible. Flying cars have actually existed for quite a while but just aren't practical or safe. They are likely to come about in some fashion with how drone technology has progressed, as far as climate change, well IDK we might be screwed but we'll see. Failure is just another road sign on the way to success.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10213.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h4zvhz1","c_root_id_B":"h4zvd1e","created_at_utc_A":1626145174,"created_at_utc_B":1626145096,"score_A":10,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Most people don't realize the research is happening at all. You get no support at all if nobody knows what you are doing. Even if he turns away 99 percent of the people who hear him, 1 percent is more than 0.","human_ref_B":"Shoot for the stars and you might reach the moon. What's the point in trying to get people excited about immortality tech that won't be ready until after they die? Maybe you're right, maybe it won't be ready in 20 years. But 20 years is a long time, and if you're a billionaire, it's a pretty good hedge to put all your money into it given that the alternative is death and therefore an unlimited harm where all your money goes to waste anyway.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":78.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h50ij6o","c_root_id_B":"h4zvd1e","created_at_utc_A":1626161872,"created_at_utc_B":1626145096,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. A good way to gauge the plausibility of claims like this is to look relevant fields, and see where they where 20 years ago to get a feel for a plausible amount of development. The two that I think apply here are gene reading\/editing and computers. Twenty years ago both fields where in their relative infancy compared to today. Assuming similar levels of development, it's certainly plausible that by the 2040s we will be able to ready you genes, brute force calculate trillions of changes, figure out which will make you live longer, then apply them to you. So no, it's a perfectly plausible goal. It may not happen, but it certainly might come to pass. >We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously. Cold fusion isn't a real term, regular fusions has been making staler progress though. The test reactor in France will generate electricity and is almost complete now. Flying cars have been a thing for decades, they are called helicopters. You can do the same small scale point to point transport cars do, but while flying. And removing co2 from the air is extremely easy. That's what Co2 scrubbers do. Most of the tech 'they' have been saying we are going to have, we have. At least in one form or another. We have VR, we have brain-computer interfaces, we have space travel, we have gene editing, we have tiny super powerful computers, we have global internet.","human_ref_B":"Shoot for the stars and you might reach the moon. What's the point in trying to get people excited about immortality tech that won't be ready until after they die? Maybe you're right, maybe it won't be ready in 20 years. But 20 years is a long time, and if you're a billionaire, it's a pretty good hedge to put all your money into it given that the alternative is death and therefore an unlimited harm where all your money goes to waste anyway.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16776.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h50ij6o","c_root_id_B":"h50a0pu","created_at_utc_A":1626161872,"created_at_utc_B":1626154716,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. A good way to gauge the plausibility of claims like this is to look relevant fields, and see where they where 20 years ago to get a feel for a plausible amount of development. The two that I think apply here are gene reading\/editing and computers. Twenty years ago both fields where in their relative infancy compared to today. Assuming similar levels of development, it's certainly plausible that by the 2040s we will be able to ready you genes, brute force calculate trillions of changes, figure out which will make you live longer, then apply them to you. So no, it's a perfectly plausible goal. It may not happen, but it certainly might come to pass. >We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously. Cold fusion isn't a real term, regular fusions has been making staler progress though. The test reactor in France will generate electricity and is almost complete now. Flying cars have been a thing for decades, they are called helicopters. You can do the same small scale point to point transport cars do, but while flying. And removing co2 from the air is extremely easy. That's what Co2 scrubbers do. Most of the tech 'they' have been saying we are going to have, we have. At least in one form or another. We have VR, we have brain-computer interfaces, we have space travel, we have gene editing, we have tiny super powerful computers, we have global internet.","human_ref_B":"We're going to achieve something close to it, or be capable of it, in 20 years. Laws and ethics are going to prevent it from spreading. Maybe even from being known. I fully believe that the first person that will live past 200, has already been born. While that's not immortality, it's getting closer. They're fuddle-fucking with genes on mice and making some of them age much much slower, and live much much longer. Scientists in china are making some pretty extraordinary claims for some of the manipulation they've done. A 25% increase in lifespan, currently. Which doesnt sound like a lot, but 25% of the longest mouse's lifespan, in human years, would make 160-170 years old the new maximum. That's JUST the gene they've fiddled with for long life, there's another one that they've fiddle with that slows down the ageing process in mice--extending the period at which their cells replace themselves faster than they die (the age humans hit this is usually around 24-28), by double. That would mean that, the period of your life where you're strongest, heal fastest, and feel indestructible would be pushed from your 20's to your early 50's. We could be looking, in the not too distant future, if ALLOWED, where humans reach the age of 50, or 60, before they FEEL today's 30. and living to 170-200. Immortal? No, perhaps not, but getting a person to 100, and having them feel like 50 year olds TODAY do, would be a monster chunk of progress. THOSE people may discover something equating to immortality.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7156.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"oj6lqr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: Biological immortality for humans will not be possible in the time span scientists like Aubrey de Grey are saying (20 years). Their snake oil salesman like promotion of this goal will only result in them failing to garner support to achieve this. Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously.","c_root_id_A":"h50agkh","c_root_id_B":"h50ij6o","created_at_utc_A":1626155050,"created_at_utc_B":1626161872,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think you're underestimating people's will to live. People have been searching for immortality for a very long time. They're not going to stop if someone fails. Especially if they keep pushing the ball forward. The science of chemistry has been evolving for centuries because it's just an enormous field. These things take time. For example: The Chinese just had a major breakthrough on fusion this week and when I was a child we were taught it was impossible. Flying cars have actually existed for quite a while but just aren't practical or safe. They are likely to come about in some fashion with how drone technology has progressed, as far as climate change, well IDK we might be screwed but we'll see. Failure is just another road sign on the way to success.","human_ref_B":">Don't get me wrong when I say people like de Grey are great at what they do, but their self-promotion that immortality is within our grasp is optimistic at best and disingenuous at worst. The current ways of achieving it aren't more than likely feasible (cryogenics, mind uploading, cell senescence\/senolytics, nanorobots, cybernetic implants, genetic engineering) in this lifetime. A good way to gauge the plausibility of claims like this is to look relevant fields, and see where they where 20 years ago to get a feel for a plausible amount of development. The two that I think apply here are gene reading\/editing and computers. Twenty years ago both fields where in their relative infancy compared to today. Assuming similar levels of development, it's certainly plausible that by the 2040s we will be able to ready you genes, brute force calculate trillions of changes, figure out which will make you live longer, then apply them to you. So no, it's a perfectly plausible goal. It may not happen, but it certainly might come to pass. >We've been saying we're going to have so many amazing things in our life time? How many times have people promoted we're gonna have this or that in our lifetime (cold fusion, flying cars, the ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air, etc.). Sure it might happen, but 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It prevents people from taking the research seriously. Cold fusion isn't a real term, regular fusions has been making staler progress though. The test reactor in France will generate electricity and is almost complete now. Flying cars have been a thing for decades, they are called helicopters. You can do the same small scale point to point transport cars do, but while flying. And removing co2 from the air is extremely easy. That's what Co2 scrubbers do. Most of the tech 'they' have been saying we are going to have, we have. At least in one form or another. We have VR, we have brain-computer interfaces, we have space travel, we have gene editing, we have tiny super powerful computers, we have global internet.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6822.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"q08va3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Laws\/rules that have a religious exemption are pointless This is nothing against religions, but more about pointless laws or rules that are in place. If there\u2019s a rule in place but a religious exemption to get around it, clearly the rule isn\u2019t that important in the first place and probably shouldn\u2019t apply to anyone. If the rule truly is that important, then it shouldn\u2019t matter if it is against someone\u2019s religion. The most obvious example I see regularly is shaving in the military. Everyone has to be clean shaven except people who claim a religious exemption (and a handful of other exceptions). If shaving was really that important it should be required for everyone with no exception. Since it clearly isn\u2019t, why not just get rid of the rule altogether? Does anyone have an example of a religious exemption that actually makes sense?","c_root_id_A":"hf6f09t","c_root_id_B":"hf6h1xi","created_at_utc_A":1633229068,"created_at_utc_B":1633230093,"score_A":15,"score_B":73,"human_ref_A":"Amish exemption from social security and Medicare. They don't believe in commercial insurance.","human_ref_B":"The question you have to ask is, what is the law's goal, and to what extent does it achieve it? If the goal is to have everyone do X, and currently only 50% do X, you might try and enact a policy saying X is mandatory to get 100% of people doing X, which is your goal. But then religious folks might object and the law is in danger of not happening at all. But if you allow a religious exemption, the question becomes what actually happens. If the result of the law is that 75% of people do X (up from 50%), that's *progress*. And if the law wouldn't get passed without the religious exemption, in practice it might be the best you can do. Your argument seems to be, \"well, if you're satisfied with only 75%, I guess it's not important.\" But the real argument is, if it's important, and 75% is the best you can do, you *must* include the exemption so that you get whatever gain you can. Edit: To be clear, since you used it as your example, I'm *not* making an argument that being clean shaven in the military is important. Presumably someone does though. \u00af\\_(\u30c4)_\/\u00af","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1025.0,"score_ratio":4.8666666667} {"post_id":"q08va3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Laws\/rules that have a religious exemption are pointless This is nothing against religions, but more about pointless laws or rules that are in place. If there\u2019s a rule in place but a religious exemption to get around it, clearly the rule isn\u2019t that important in the first place and probably shouldn\u2019t apply to anyone. If the rule truly is that important, then it shouldn\u2019t matter if it is against someone\u2019s religion. The most obvious example I see regularly is shaving in the military. Everyone has to be clean shaven except people who claim a religious exemption (and a handful of other exceptions). If shaving was really that important it should be required for everyone with no exception. Since it clearly isn\u2019t, why not just get rid of the rule altogether? Does anyone have an example of a religious exemption that actually makes sense?","c_root_id_A":"hf6h1xi","c_root_id_B":"hf6f7wg","created_at_utc_A":1633230093,"created_at_utc_B":1633229173,"score_A":73,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"The question you have to ask is, what is the law's goal, and to what extent does it achieve it? If the goal is to have everyone do X, and currently only 50% do X, you might try and enact a policy saying X is mandatory to get 100% of people doing X, which is your goal. But then religious folks might object and the law is in danger of not happening at all. But if you allow a religious exemption, the question becomes what actually happens. If the result of the law is that 75% of people do X (up from 50%), that's *progress*. And if the law wouldn't get passed without the religious exemption, in practice it might be the best you can do. Your argument seems to be, \"well, if you're satisfied with only 75%, I guess it's not important.\" But the real argument is, if it's important, and 75% is the best you can do, you *must* include the exemption so that you get whatever gain you can. Edit: To be clear, since you used it as your example, I'm *not* making an argument that being clean shaven in the military is important. Presumably someone does though. \u00af\\_(\u30c4)_\/\u00af","human_ref_B":"Exceptions are decided by impact. You can get a religious exemption for shaving in the military because the goal of it isn't to strip you of your religion, but to strip you of your individuality. You can't get a religious exemption to vaccinations though, because that's a health violation. It doesn't mean the rule is pointless, it just means they are willing to make accommodations for people. Is it bad to make accommodations in a reasonable matter for rules that impact them differently than the general populace?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":920.0,"score_ratio":6.0833333333} {"post_id":"q08va3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Laws\/rules that have a religious exemption are pointless This is nothing against religions, but more about pointless laws or rules that are in place. If there\u2019s a rule in place but a religious exemption to get around it, clearly the rule isn\u2019t that important in the first place and probably shouldn\u2019t apply to anyone. If the rule truly is that important, then it shouldn\u2019t matter if it is against someone\u2019s religion. The most obvious example I see regularly is shaving in the military. Everyone has to be clean shaven except people who claim a religious exemption (and a handful of other exceptions). If shaving was really that important it should be required for everyone with no exception. Since it clearly isn\u2019t, why not just get rid of the rule altogether? Does anyone have an example of a religious exemption that actually makes sense?","c_root_id_A":"hf6h1xi","c_root_id_B":"hf6gagh","created_at_utc_A":1633230093,"created_at_utc_B":1633229706,"score_A":73,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The question you have to ask is, what is the law's goal, and to what extent does it achieve it? If the goal is to have everyone do X, and currently only 50% do X, you might try and enact a policy saying X is mandatory to get 100% of people doing X, which is your goal. But then religious folks might object and the law is in danger of not happening at all. But if you allow a religious exemption, the question becomes what actually happens. If the result of the law is that 75% of people do X (up from 50%), that's *progress*. And if the law wouldn't get passed without the religious exemption, in practice it might be the best you can do. Your argument seems to be, \"well, if you're satisfied with only 75%, I guess it's not important.\" But the real argument is, if it's important, and 75% is the best you can do, you *must* include the exemption so that you get whatever gain you can. Edit: To be clear, since you used it as your example, I'm *not* making an argument that being clean shaven in the military is important. Presumably someone does though. \u00af\\_(\u30c4)_\/\u00af","human_ref_B":"Should there be laws that prevent landlord from discriminating against prospective tenants\/actual tenants based on race, religion, family status, etc? I ask because if you think there should be laws to prevent this, the fair housing act has exemptions that allow landlords TO discriminate against people for those reasons since the fair housing act does not apply to certain landlords. Under your logic, since there are exemptions, the rule shouldn\u2019t be there anyways. https:\/\/www.hud.gov\/sites\/documents\/FHEO_BOOKLET_ENG.PDF","labels":1,"seconds_difference":387.0,"score_ratio":24.3333333333} {"post_id":"q08va3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Laws\/rules that have a religious exemption are pointless This is nothing against religions, but more about pointless laws or rules that are in place. If there\u2019s a rule in place but a religious exemption to get around it, clearly the rule isn\u2019t that important in the first place and probably shouldn\u2019t apply to anyone. If the rule truly is that important, then it shouldn\u2019t matter if it is against someone\u2019s religion. The most obvious example I see regularly is shaving in the military. Everyone has to be clean shaven except people who claim a religious exemption (and a handful of other exceptions). If shaving was really that important it should be required for everyone with no exception. Since it clearly isn\u2019t, why not just get rid of the rule altogether? Does anyone have an example of a religious exemption that actually makes sense?","c_root_id_A":"hf6rgia","c_root_id_B":"hf6gagh","created_at_utc_A":1633235734,"created_at_utc_B":1633229706,"score_A":11,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don't think this applies to your shaving example, but in many cases, religious exemptions only allow you to break the rule in certain limited ways, rather than ignoring it entirely. For instance, during prohibition in the US, an exception was made to allow Christians to use alcohol in religious ceremonies. This didn't mean Christians could ignore prohibition *in general*; they could only drink small amounts during a specific ritual. This didn't seriously threaten the general goal of preventing drunken nuisances (despite Christians being a large percentage of the total population).","human_ref_B":"Should there be laws that prevent landlord from discriminating against prospective tenants\/actual tenants based on race, religion, family status, etc? I ask because if you think there should be laws to prevent this, the fair housing act has exemptions that allow landlords TO discriminate against people for those reasons since the fair housing act does not apply to certain landlords. Under your logic, since there are exemptions, the rule shouldn\u2019t be there anyways. https:\/\/www.hud.gov\/sites\/documents\/FHEO_BOOKLET_ENG.PDF","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6028.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"q08va3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Laws\/rules that have a religious exemption are pointless This is nothing against religions, but more about pointless laws or rules that are in place. If there\u2019s a rule in place but a religious exemption to get around it, clearly the rule isn\u2019t that important in the first place and probably shouldn\u2019t apply to anyone. If the rule truly is that important, then it shouldn\u2019t matter if it is against someone\u2019s religion. The most obvious example I see regularly is shaving in the military. Everyone has to be clean shaven except people who claim a religious exemption (and a handful of other exceptions). If shaving was really that important it should be required for everyone with no exception. Since it clearly isn\u2019t, why not just get rid of the rule altogether? Does anyone have an example of a religious exemption that actually makes sense?","c_root_id_A":"hf6p6sj","c_root_id_B":"hf6rgia","created_at_utc_A":1633234450,"created_at_utc_B":1633235734,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"In the United States you have a right to exercise your religion. Through several Supreme Court cases what I believe the Court has stated is that there needs to be a compelling reason for the government to force a person to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. In practice this means that if a law is passed that does not have a compelling reason and a person's religion would be violated then the law does not apply to them because it would violate their rights. You are in essence saying that if any law violates the (religious) rights of \\*ANY\\* person then that law should be stricken for everyone \\*OR\\* you are stating that there should be no right to exercise one's religion. Both possible positions are untenable. Amish do not participate in insurance. Pentacostal women do not cut their hair. First Church of Christ, Scientists do not believe in invasive medicine. ...and there are other examples... Making Amish participate in social security, or forcing hair cuts on Pentacostals, etc. etc. is a violation of their rights. Under what circumstance do you think it is a good idea to throw people's rights out the window? Or the flip side of that, under what circumstance do you think it is a good idea to let any religious limitation prevent public policy from being made?","human_ref_B":"I don't think this applies to your shaving example, but in many cases, religious exemptions only allow you to break the rule in certain limited ways, rather than ignoring it entirely. For instance, during prohibition in the US, an exception was made to allow Christians to use alcohol in religious ceremonies. This didn't mean Christians could ignore prohibition *in general*; they could only drink small amounts during a specific ritual. This didn't seriously threaten the general goal of preventing drunken nuisances (despite Christians being a large percentage of the total population).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1284.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"q08va3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Laws\/rules that have a religious exemption are pointless This is nothing against religions, but more about pointless laws or rules that are in place. If there\u2019s a rule in place but a religious exemption to get around it, clearly the rule isn\u2019t that important in the first place and probably shouldn\u2019t apply to anyone. If the rule truly is that important, then it shouldn\u2019t matter if it is against someone\u2019s religion. The most obvious example I see regularly is shaving in the military. Everyone has to be clean shaven except people who claim a religious exemption (and a handful of other exceptions). If shaving was really that important it should be required for everyone with no exception. Since it clearly isn\u2019t, why not just get rid of the rule altogether? Does anyone have an example of a religious exemption that actually makes sense?","c_root_id_A":"hf6z336","c_root_id_B":"hf6gagh","created_at_utc_A":1633240500,"created_at_utc_B":1633229706,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I want to add something to your view. Why only religion has those exemptions? It seems that from separation of church and state point of view there shouldn't be any difference between church with its exemptions and Bo\u017eena N\u011bmcov\u00e1's fanclub that this quote from Grandmother: \"Her own sleep, poor old lady was not good; but she remembered how sweet it used to be when she was young, and so was always glad to let others enjoy it.\" means that walking without alarm clock is the only way.","human_ref_B":"Should there be laws that prevent landlord from discriminating against prospective tenants\/actual tenants based on race, religion, family status, etc? I ask because if you think there should be laws to prevent this, the fair housing act has exemptions that allow landlords TO discriminate against people for those reasons since the fair housing act does not apply to certain landlords. Under your logic, since there are exemptions, the rule shouldn\u2019t be there anyways. https:\/\/www.hud.gov\/sites\/documents\/FHEO_BOOKLET_ENG.PDF","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10794.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"q08va3","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: Laws\/rules that have a religious exemption are pointless This is nothing against religions, but more about pointless laws or rules that are in place. If there\u2019s a rule in place but a religious exemption to get around it, clearly the rule isn\u2019t that important in the first place and probably shouldn\u2019t apply to anyone. If the rule truly is that important, then it shouldn\u2019t matter if it is against someone\u2019s religion. The most obvious example I see regularly is shaving in the military. Everyone has to be clean shaven except people who claim a religious exemption (and a handful of other exceptions). If shaving was really that important it should be required for everyone with no exception. Since it clearly isn\u2019t, why not just get rid of the rule altogether? Does anyone have an example of a religious exemption that actually makes sense?","c_root_id_A":"hf6p6sj","c_root_id_B":"hf6z336","created_at_utc_A":1633234450,"created_at_utc_B":1633240500,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"In the United States you have a right to exercise your religion. Through several Supreme Court cases what I believe the Court has stated is that there needs to be a compelling reason for the government to force a person to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. In practice this means that if a law is passed that does not have a compelling reason and a person's religion would be violated then the law does not apply to them because it would violate their rights. You are in essence saying that if any law violates the (religious) rights of \\*ANY\\* person then that law should be stricken for everyone \\*OR\\* you are stating that there should be no right to exercise one's religion. Both possible positions are untenable. Amish do not participate in insurance. Pentacostal women do not cut their hair. First Church of Christ, Scientists do not believe in invasive medicine. ...and there are other examples... Making Amish participate in social security, or forcing hair cuts on Pentacostals, etc. etc. is a violation of their rights. Under what circumstance do you think it is a good idea to throw people's rights out the window? Or the flip side of that, under what circumstance do you think it is a good idea to let any religious limitation prevent public policy from being made?","human_ref_B":"I want to add something to your view. Why only religion has those exemptions? It seems that from separation of church and state point of view there shouldn't be any difference between church with its exemptions and Bo\u017eena N\u011bmcov\u00e1's fanclub that this quote from Grandmother: \"Her own sleep, poor old lady was not good; but she remembered how sweet it used to be when she was young, and so was always glad to let others enjoy it.\" means that walking without alarm clock is the only way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6050.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"9tavmy","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Government officials should always be available for comment on something that they said and should not be allowed to refuse to do so. (Reposted to change title for clarity) This was prompted after a couple of articles that I read over the last couple of days, one where the FCC commissioner claimed that communal broadband violates the First Amendment and another where Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed Trump won the popular vote despite him losing by millions of votes. The common thread between these articles is that in both cases, neither Sanders nor Mike O'Reilly faced any kind of retribution or questioning over their false statements because, rather conveniently, neither of them were available for comment after they occurred; Sanders called the press briefing to a close and the FCC didn't respond to a request for comment. The fact that they weren't held accountable at all is ridiculous. A government official isn't an athlete or a salesman, they were either elected or appointed by another elected official to serve the interests of the United States and its people. They shouldn't get to run a PR campaign. They shouldn't get time to spin what they said into something else. If they make a false or deceptive statement, they should be forcefully compelled to immediately and publicly justify what they said or admit that they were lying and suffer the consequences. There should be nothing shielding these officials from the people that elected them.","c_root_id_A":"e8uwo70","c_root_id_B":"e8utrz2","created_at_utc_A":1541091429,"created_at_utc_B":1541089158,"score_A":18,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"When you think about how things *should* be, you have to separate that from what should be a rule\/law. While I completely agree public official should be as available as possible to answer questions and be transparent, but making that a rule will lead to the abuse of that rule by all parties. For example it'd be pretty easy to hassle any public official with loaded questions or repeated questions until all the time for a statement is wasted discussing something irrelevant (this already happens a lot). Also for a rule like that to exist someone with an agenda is going to need to have the power to say \"You're not going anywhere, you have to answer that question.\" and \"You're lying, answer it truthfully\". While that sounds good when think of an honest journalists exposing corruption, it's less good when it's a Putin type or just a bias news outlet forcing someone to make a baseless accusation legitimate by discussing it. It's not that officials dodging questions isn't a real problem we should try to solve but a law\/rule trying to ban it outright isn't an effective way to do it.","human_ref_B":"Democracy already has a way to deal with this: Voting. Not happy with public officials? Elect a different government. I am not sure why more mechanisms are needed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2271.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"9tavmy","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Government officials should always be available for comment on something that they said and should not be allowed to refuse to do so. (Reposted to change title for clarity) This was prompted after a couple of articles that I read over the last couple of days, one where the FCC commissioner claimed that communal broadband violates the First Amendment and another where Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed Trump won the popular vote despite him losing by millions of votes. The common thread between these articles is that in both cases, neither Sanders nor Mike O'Reilly faced any kind of retribution or questioning over their false statements because, rather conveniently, neither of them were available for comment after they occurred; Sanders called the press briefing to a close and the FCC didn't respond to a request for comment. The fact that they weren't held accountable at all is ridiculous. A government official isn't an athlete or a salesman, they were either elected or appointed by another elected official to serve the interests of the United States and its people. They shouldn't get to run a PR campaign. They shouldn't get time to spin what they said into something else. If they make a false or deceptive statement, they should be forcefully compelled to immediately and publicly justify what they said or admit that they were lying and suffer the consequences. There should be nothing shielding these officials from the people that elected them.","c_root_id_A":"e8uwo70","c_root_id_B":"e8uuaxj","created_at_utc_A":1541091429,"created_at_utc_B":1541089573,"score_A":18,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"When you think about how things *should* be, you have to separate that from what should be a rule\/law. While I completely agree public official should be as available as possible to answer questions and be transparent, but making that a rule will lead to the abuse of that rule by all parties. For example it'd be pretty easy to hassle any public official with loaded questions or repeated questions until all the time for a statement is wasted discussing something irrelevant (this already happens a lot). Also for a rule like that to exist someone with an agenda is going to need to have the power to say \"You're not going anywhere, you have to answer that question.\" and \"You're lying, answer it truthfully\". While that sounds good when think of an honest journalists exposing corruption, it's less good when it's a Putin type or just a bias news outlet forcing someone to make a baseless accusation legitimate by discussing it. It's not that officials dodging questions isn't a real problem we should try to solve but a law\/rule trying to ban it outright isn't an effective way to do it.","human_ref_B":"They're politicians, not journalists. As screwed up as this sounds, politicians aren't held to the same standard of truth seeking as the media is. When a newspaper publishes a story that contains inaccurate information, they generally will write a redaction or correction article acknowledging that they were wrong. When it comes to politicians, 90% of their job is lying for votes. \"I promise to do this!\", \"My opponent will do this bad thing!\", \"This (inaccurate) statistic is a huge problem in our district!\" are all normal rhetoric in politics and they're often statements that nobody gets held to. And quite frankly, it's not their job to correct themselves. Just the fact that there are ways that the average person can fact check politician's statements should be enough to keep the most honest people in power. The problems with politicians being available to explain their comments is just a small part of the larger misinformation problem we're facing today. People shouldn't listen to politicians for their news anyway.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1856.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"9tavmy","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Government officials should always be available for comment on something that they said and should not be allowed to refuse to do so. (Reposted to change title for clarity) This was prompted after a couple of articles that I read over the last couple of days, one where the FCC commissioner claimed that communal broadband violates the First Amendment and another where Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed Trump won the popular vote despite him losing by millions of votes. The common thread between these articles is that in both cases, neither Sanders nor Mike O'Reilly faced any kind of retribution or questioning over their false statements because, rather conveniently, neither of them were available for comment after they occurred; Sanders called the press briefing to a close and the FCC didn't respond to a request for comment. The fact that they weren't held accountable at all is ridiculous. A government official isn't an athlete or a salesman, they were either elected or appointed by another elected official to serve the interests of the United States and its people. They shouldn't get to run a PR campaign. They shouldn't get time to spin what they said into something else. If they make a false or deceptive statement, they should be forcefully compelled to immediately and publicly justify what they said or admit that they were lying and suffer the consequences. There should be nothing shielding these officials from the people that elected them.","c_root_id_A":"e8utyy4","c_root_id_B":"e8uwo70","created_at_utc_A":1541089310,"created_at_utc_B":1541091429,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"What if they're in the restroom?","human_ref_B":"When you think about how things *should* be, you have to separate that from what should be a rule\/law. While I completely agree public official should be as available as possible to answer questions and be transparent, but making that a rule will lead to the abuse of that rule by all parties. For example it'd be pretty easy to hassle any public official with loaded questions or repeated questions until all the time for a statement is wasted discussing something irrelevant (this already happens a lot). Also for a rule like that to exist someone with an agenda is going to need to have the power to say \"You're not going anywhere, you have to answer that question.\" and \"You're lying, answer it truthfully\". While that sounds good when think of an honest journalists exposing corruption, it's less good when it's a Putin type or just a bias news outlet forcing someone to make a baseless accusation legitimate by discussing it. It's not that officials dodging questions isn't a real problem we should try to solve but a law\/rule trying to ban it outright isn't an effective way to do it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2119.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"9tavmy","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Government officials should always be available for comment on something that they said and should not be allowed to refuse to do so. (Reposted to change title for clarity) This was prompted after a couple of articles that I read over the last couple of days, one where the FCC commissioner claimed that communal broadband violates the First Amendment and another where Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed Trump won the popular vote despite him losing by millions of votes. The common thread between these articles is that in both cases, neither Sanders nor Mike O'Reilly faced any kind of retribution or questioning over their false statements because, rather conveniently, neither of them were available for comment after they occurred; Sanders called the press briefing to a close and the FCC didn't respond to a request for comment. The fact that they weren't held accountable at all is ridiculous. A government official isn't an athlete or a salesman, they were either elected or appointed by another elected official to serve the interests of the United States and its people. They shouldn't get to run a PR campaign. They shouldn't get time to spin what they said into something else. If they make a false or deceptive statement, they should be forcefully compelled to immediately and publicly justify what they said or admit that they were lying and suffer the consequences. There should be nothing shielding these officials from the people that elected them.","c_root_id_A":"e8v0wm7","c_root_id_B":"e8utyy4","created_at_utc_A":1541094855,"created_at_utc_B":1541089310,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Imagine if President Obama had had to comment on or respond to every single conspiracy theory that was put forward about him, there wouldn't have been enough time in the day to do that. While I definitely agree that public officials who knowingly mislead the public should face consequences for it, I don't think that removing the right to refuse comment is the way to do that.","human_ref_B":"What if they're in the restroom?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5545.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"9tavmy","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Government officials should always be available for comment on something that they said and should not be allowed to refuse to do so. (Reposted to change title for clarity) This was prompted after a couple of articles that I read over the last couple of days, one where the FCC commissioner claimed that communal broadband violates the First Amendment and another where Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed Trump won the popular vote despite him losing by millions of votes. The common thread between these articles is that in both cases, neither Sanders nor Mike O'Reilly faced any kind of retribution or questioning over their false statements because, rather conveniently, neither of them were available for comment after they occurred; Sanders called the press briefing to a close and the FCC didn't respond to a request for comment. The fact that they weren't held accountable at all is ridiculous. A government official isn't an athlete or a salesman, they were either elected or appointed by another elected official to serve the interests of the United States and its people. They shouldn't get to run a PR campaign. They shouldn't get time to spin what they said into something else. If they make a false or deceptive statement, they should be forcefully compelled to immediately and publicly justify what they said or admit that they were lying and suffer the consequences. There should be nothing shielding these officials from the people that elected them.","c_root_id_A":"e8utyy4","c_root_id_B":"e8uuaxj","created_at_utc_A":1541089310,"created_at_utc_B":1541089573,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What if they're in the restroom?","human_ref_B":"They're politicians, not journalists. As screwed up as this sounds, politicians aren't held to the same standard of truth seeking as the media is. When a newspaper publishes a story that contains inaccurate information, they generally will write a redaction or correction article acknowledging that they were wrong. When it comes to politicians, 90% of their job is lying for votes. \"I promise to do this!\", \"My opponent will do this bad thing!\", \"This (inaccurate) statistic is a huge problem in our district!\" are all normal rhetoric in politics and they're often statements that nobody gets held to. And quite frankly, it's not their job to correct themselves. Just the fact that there are ways that the average person can fact check politician's statements should be enough to keep the most honest people in power. The problems with politicians being available to explain their comments is just a small part of the larger misinformation problem we're facing today. People shouldn't listen to politicians for their news anyway.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":263.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"spgaph","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Reddit moderators have no accountability and that hurts the site Just got permanently banned from the AmITheAsshole sub. A man wanted to skip the birth of his daughter to watch the movie The Batman in theaters so he could avoid spoilers. I called him a manchild and was permanently banned. After 9 messages with a mod back and forth, they kept flip flopping on why the ban was enforced. They'd say something, I'd use their own rules to prove them wrong, they'd try to point out something else, and I'd use their own rules against them again. Eventually they settled on the fact I used the term \"manchild\". That is an insult worthy of a permanent ban in their eyes. In my experience, you cannot get bans overturned on Reddit, even when it's a minor innocuous infraction like this. Every single subreddit has at least one mod, if not more, who is solely there for power tripping rather than wanting to actually make a subreddit better. There's no accountability for mods power tripping. There's no place to complain about them, and Reddit itself doesn't care about individual subreddits. I just 95% of what they do doesn't contribute anything meaningful. They could all be replaced with bots and we'd be better off. Every single encounter with a Reddit mod has left me with the feeling they closely resemble the mod from the Antiwork subreddit who did the Fox News interview and got openly laughed at.","c_root_id_A":"hwf0m1u","c_root_id_B":"hwf3elx","created_at_utc_A":1644525730,"created_at_utc_B":1644526737,"score_A":19,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Hurts the site in what way? I think it helps the site as far as traffic goes because it allows everyone to go to their safe spaces and be affirmed in their beliefs by thousands of others having people view adds and buy emojis because it makes them feel good. It\u2019s not good for actual discourse but it does bring in revenue for Reddit","human_ref_B":"> Just got permanently banned from Why do all the posts I see here on this subject include this in the body? > Every single subreddit has at least one mod, if not more, who is solely there for power tripping rather than wanting to actually make a subreddit better. r\/blooddonors quite easily proves this wrong. > There's no place to complain about them What exactly is it that you're doing right now? > Reddit itself doesn't care about individual subreddits They indeed do not, so? > I just 95% of what they do doesn't contribute anything meaningful. They could all be replaced with bots and we'd be better off. That's a rather funny thing to say considering your situation. Let's say that we did in fact replace all mods of the mentioned sub with bots and kept the rule of no insults in place. Now we need a full list of all the possible insults (and all their (mis)spellings) to give to this bot so this rule can be enforced. Remember, computers don't understand what we say. To them a sentence like \"he said that all people who shoot themselves in the foot are idiots\" and \"you are an absolute idiot\" are pretty much the same. The computer doesn't understand that the first one is paraphrasing and the second is actually calling an idiot. So your use of the word manchild would have triggered an automatic reacting from the mod-bot and presumably given you a permanent ban. > Every single encounter with a Reddit mod has left me with the feeling they ... You know, a while back I wrote myself a little js script that highlighted all the usernames of subreddit moderators in a different colour and put the name of the subreddit(s) that they moderate next to their name. I personally was surprised at how often they appear as normal, regular users like anybody else. You probably have confirmation bias. And I mean that in the most literal way, you have a pre conceived notion of what moderators act like and what kind of people they are and fail to search for anything that'd disprove that notion. > Reddit moderators have no accountability and that hurts the site At no point in your post have you mentioned anything about it hurting the site as a whole.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1007.0,"score_ratio":1.8421052632} {"post_id":"spgaph","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Reddit moderators have no accountability and that hurts the site Just got permanently banned from the AmITheAsshole sub. A man wanted to skip the birth of his daughter to watch the movie The Batman in theaters so he could avoid spoilers. I called him a manchild and was permanently banned. After 9 messages with a mod back and forth, they kept flip flopping on why the ban was enforced. They'd say something, I'd use their own rules to prove them wrong, they'd try to point out something else, and I'd use their own rules against them again. Eventually they settled on the fact I used the term \"manchild\". That is an insult worthy of a permanent ban in their eyes. In my experience, you cannot get bans overturned on Reddit, even when it's a minor innocuous infraction like this. Every single subreddit has at least one mod, if not more, who is solely there for power tripping rather than wanting to actually make a subreddit better. There's no accountability for mods power tripping. There's no place to complain about them, and Reddit itself doesn't care about individual subreddits. I just 95% of what they do doesn't contribute anything meaningful. They could all be replaced with bots and we'd be better off. Every single encounter with a Reddit mod has left me with the feeling they closely resemble the mod from the Antiwork subreddit who did the Fox News interview and got openly laughed at.","c_root_id_A":"hwf6t2v","c_root_id_B":"hwf0m1u","created_at_utc_A":1644527970,"created_at_utc_B":1644525730,"score_A":27,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"The fact that mods have tyrannical powers (should they choose to use them) is a consequence of the *design* of Reddit. No one, to my knowledge, has come up with a better structure for a forum site, that would allow mods to act as spam\/troll janitors (always their primary function - no matter how much users bitch about them) and enforce community rules, without also allowing them to be unaccountable tyrants should they choose to be. Do you have a better idea for how Reddit should be structured, to avoid the eternal recurrence of this problem?","human_ref_B":"Hurts the site in what way? I think it helps the site as far as traffic goes because it allows everyone to go to their safe spaces and be affirmed in their beliefs by thousands of others having people view adds and buy emojis because it makes them feel good. It\u2019s not good for actual discourse but it does bring in revenue for Reddit","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2240.0,"score_ratio":1.4210526316} {"post_id":"spgaph","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Reddit moderators have no accountability and that hurts the site Just got permanently banned from the AmITheAsshole sub. A man wanted to skip the birth of his daughter to watch the movie The Batman in theaters so he could avoid spoilers. I called him a manchild and was permanently banned. After 9 messages with a mod back and forth, they kept flip flopping on why the ban was enforced. They'd say something, I'd use their own rules to prove them wrong, they'd try to point out something else, and I'd use their own rules against them again. Eventually they settled on the fact I used the term \"manchild\". That is an insult worthy of a permanent ban in their eyes. In my experience, you cannot get bans overturned on Reddit, even when it's a minor innocuous infraction like this. Every single subreddit has at least one mod, if not more, who is solely there for power tripping rather than wanting to actually make a subreddit better. There's no accountability for mods power tripping. There's no place to complain about them, and Reddit itself doesn't care about individual subreddits. I just 95% of what they do doesn't contribute anything meaningful. They could all be replaced with bots and we'd be better off. Every single encounter with a Reddit mod has left me with the feeling they closely resemble the mod from the Antiwork subreddit who did the Fox News interview and got openly laughed at.","c_root_id_A":"hwf6t2v","c_root_id_B":"hwf3y08","created_at_utc_A":1644527970,"created_at_utc_B":1644526932,"score_A":27,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"The fact that mods have tyrannical powers (should they choose to use them) is a consequence of the *design* of Reddit. No one, to my knowledge, has come up with a better structure for a forum site, that would allow mods to act as spam\/troll janitors (always their primary function - no matter how much users bitch about them) and enforce community rules, without also allowing them to be unaccountable tyrants should they choose to be. Do you have a better idea for how Reddit should be structured, to avoid the eternal recurrence of this problem?","human_ref_B":"The claim that the lack of accountability of Reddit moderators is harming the site implies that you think Reddit moderators being held accountable in some way to some authority would be a benefit to the site in comparison. But to who or what exactly? Reddit can hold moderators to a similar code of conduct as everyone else (Reddiquette for example), but would it really be of benefit if users could appeal bans or similar moderation action to some higher tier of moderator? Is some Reddit employee going to a mod and saying \"\/u\/Pheef175 is angry about his ban, you gotta make the customer happy!\" a good thing? First, this kind of accountability is likely to require compensation. If I'm not being paid by Reddit then why would I care they are worrying about your feelings? So paying mods would of course be a huge financial drain and limit moderation supply. The second major issue about such accountability is the motivations behind it. Reddit is a business and they want to make money. Accountability to moderators is less likely to be about making \/u\/Pheef175 and their 0.0017 cents of ad revenue happy, but instead about making sure they don't post anything that would scare off advertisers. Reddit corporate being almost entirely hands off to moderators may result in some unjust abuses of power or boneheaded decisions standing, but I think the alternative of being held to greater account by Reddit corporate is by far the worse option.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1038.0,"score_ratio":2.7} {"post_id":"spgaph","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Reddit moderators have no accountability and that hurts the site Just got permanently banned from the AmITheAsshole sub. A man wanted to skip the birth of his daughter to watch the movie The Batman in theaters so he could avoid spoilers. I called him a manchild and was permanently banned. After 9 messages with a mod back and forth, they kept flip flopping on why the ban was enforced. They'd say something, I'd use their own rules to prove them wrong, they'd try to point out something else, and I'd use their own rules against them again. Eventually they settled on the fact I used the term \"manchild\". That is an insult worthy of a permanent ban in their eyes. In my experience, you cannot get bans overturned on Reddit, even when it's a minor innocuous infraction like this. Every single subreddit has at least one mod, if not more, who is solely there for power tripping rather than wanting to actually make a subreddit better. There's no accountability for mods power tripping. There's no place to complain about them, and Reddit itself doesn't care about individual subreddits. I just 95% of what they do doesn't contribute anything meaningful. They could all be replaced with bots and we'd be better off. Every single encounter with a Reddit mod has left me with the feeling they closely resemble the mod from the Antiwork subreddit who did the Fox News interview and got openly laughed at.","c_root_id_A":"hwf9361","c_root_id_B":"hwgyby8","created_at_utc_A":1644528797,"created_at_utc_B":1644557846,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I agree the moderators have no accountability, but it is possible to have bans overturned, depending on the sub. I was banned for making two sarcastic comments in askreddit. The comments I responded to were extremely homophobic and sexist. I chatted with the mod, who agreed that one of their mods over-reacted and overturned the ban. So I think you are painting with too broad of a brush. I don't think that the lack of accountability harms reddit yet, but it will. After the Fox News interviews, reddit is known to political media. After the site goes public, I fully expect reddit to be in the hot seat in front of a Republican controlled House or Senate for doreenistic mods who are far too quick to ban people they see as anti-progressive. Like every congressional hearing, nothing will really come of it except that it will put pressure on reddit execs to start taking accountability for mod behavior.","human_ref_B":"You called someone a name. If you resort to name calling, I don't see why you would be surprised if you are banned. Name calling should not be something you are surprised could result in a ban. I expected to read something more along the lines of what happened to me. I simply disagreed with a moderator who was participating in the discussion. No name calling or derogatory comments were made. So yeah, I agree with your premise that moderators have too much power, and can be arbitrary on reddit. However, in your particular case you resorted to name calling.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29049.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"spgaph","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Reddit moderators have no accountability and that hurts the site Just got permanently banned from the AmITheAsshole sub. A man wanted to skip the birth of his daughter to watch the movie The Batman in theaters so he could avoid spoilers. I called him a manchild and was permanently banned. After 9 messages with a mod back and forth, they kept flip flopping on why the ban was enforced. They'd say something, I'd use their own rules to prove them wrong, they'd try to point out something else, and I'd use their own rules against them again. Eventually they settled on the fact I used the term \"manchild\". That is an insult worthy of a permanent ban in their eyes. In my experience, you cannot get bans overturned on Reddit, even when it's a minor innocuous infraction like this. Every single subreddit has at least one mod, if not more, who is solely there for power tripping rather than wanting to actually make a subreddit better. There's no accountability for mods power tripping. There's no place to complain about them, and Reddit itself doesn't care about individual subreddits. I just 95% of what they do doesn't contribute anything meaningful. They could all be replaced with bots and we'd be better off. Every single encounter with a Reddit mod has left me with the feeling they closely resemble the mod from the Antiwork subreddit who did the Fox News interview and got openly laughed at.","c_root_id_A":"hwgyby8","c_root_id_B":"hwfcp3l","created_at_utc_A":1644557846,"created_at_utc_B":1644530125,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You called someone a name. If you resort to name calling, I don't see why you would be surprised if you are banned. Name calling should not be something you are surprised could result in a ban. I expected to read something more along the lines of what happened to me. I simply disagreed with a moderator who was participating in the discussion. No name calling or derogatory comments were made. So yeah, I agree with your premise that moderators have too much power, and can be arbitrary on reddit. However, in your particular case you resorted to name calling.","human_ref_B":"In a sense mods own the sub so if it's their wish for the sub to be an absolute shithole, that's too bad, you can simply start a better alternative which of course is difficult if it's a popular sub we're talking about. But the idea that they should be accountable to someone makes no sense. In my experience mods on reddit are some of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with. Most often they don't even bother to explain why they remove a post, just set an automoderator to remove everything containing certain keywords automatically and make users figure out what's wrong which of course is waste of anyone's time and is just disrespectful. I've yet to see a single encounter with a reddit moderator after which I'm like \"ok, nice, that was reasonable\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27721.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"spgaph","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Reddit moderators have no accountability and that hurts the site Just got permanently banned from the AmITheAsshole sub. A man wanted to skip the birth of his daughter to watch the movie The Batman in theaters so he could avoid spoilers. I called him a manchild and was permanently banned. After 9 messages with a mod back and forth, they kept flip flopping on why the ban was enforced. They'd say something, I'd use their own rules to prove them wrong, they'd try to point out something else, and I'd use their own rules against them again. Eventually they settled on the fact I used the term \"manchild\". That is an insult worthy of a permanent ban in their eyes. In my experience, you cannot get bans overturned on Reddit, even when it's a minor innocuous infraction like this. Every single subreddit has at least one mod, if not more, who is solely there for power tripping rather than wanting to actually make a subreddit better. There's no accountability for mods power tripping. There's no place to complain about them, and Reddit itself doesn't care about individual subreddits. I just 95% of what they do doesn't contribute anything meaningful. They could all be replaced with bots and we'd be better off. Every single encounter with a Reddit mod has left me with the feeling they closely resemble the mod from the Antiwork subreddit who did the Fox News interview and got openly laughed at.","c_root_id_A":"hwf9m5n","c_root_id_B":"hwgyby8","created_at_utc_A":1644528990,"created_at_utc_B":1644557846,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Reddit relies on the free labour of mods, that's their business model. Reddit gets curated content for free and also gets ad revenue. In return, mods get power and content creators get internet points.","human_ref_B":"You called someone a name. If you resort to name calling, I don't see why you would be surprised if you are banned. Name calling should not be something you are surprised could result in a ban. I expected to read something more along the lines of what happened to me. I simply disagreed with a moderator who was participating in the discussion. No name calling or derogatory comments were made. So yeah, I agree with your premise that moderators have too much power, and can be arbitrary on reddit. However, in your particular case you resorted to name calling.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28856.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"spgaph","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Reddit moderators have no accountability and that hurts the site Just got permanently banned from the AmITheAsshole sub. A man wanted to skip the birth of his daughter to watch the movie The Batman in theaters so he could avoid spoilers. I called him a manchild and was permanently banned. After 9 messages with a mod back and forth, they kept flip flopping on why the ban was enforced. They'd say something, I'd use their own rules to prove them wrong, they'd try to point out something else, and I'd use their own rules against them again. Eventually they settled on the fact I used the term \"manchild\". That is an insult worthy of a permanent ban in their eyes. In my experience, you cannot get bans overturned on Reddit, even when it's a minor innocuous infraction like this. Every single subreddit has at least one mod, if not more, who is solely there for power tripping rather than wanting to actually make a subreddit better. There's no accountability for mods power tripping. There's no place to complain about them, and Reddit itself doesn't care about individual subreddits. I just 95% of what they do doesn't contribute anything meaningful. They could all be replaced with bots and we'd be better off. Every single encounter with a Reddit mod has left me with the feeling they closely resemble the mod from the Antiwork subreddit who did the Fox News interview and got openly laughed at.","c_root_id_A":"hwgyby8","c_root_id_B":"hwfz3od","created_at_utc_A":1644557846,"created_at_utc_B":1644540986,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You called someone a name. If you resort to name calling, I don't see why you would be surprised if you are banned. Name calling should not be something you are surprised could result in a ban. I expected to read something more along the lines of what happened to me. I simply disagreed with a moderator who was participating in the discussion. No name calling or derogatory comments were made. So yeah, I agree with your premise that moderators have too much power, and can be arbitrary on reddit. However, in your particular case you resorted to name calling.","human_ref_B":"Manchild is okay. But for me personally? I don't know if they are bots or real mods. But when they knock one of my posts, I read why, and then I realize (for example) My CMV: asked a question rather than a changeable viewpoint. I just started doing reddit a couple months ago when I got banned from FB (45 days in Jail for telling some troll to \"stop breathing please\". However. I will agree with you that there should be IDK, like an appeals court of maybe 3 mods, like a circuit court, or a supreme deliberation of Mods! Mods we elect based on IDK coins?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16860.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"spgaph","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"CMV: Reddit moderators have no accountability and that hurts the site Just got permanently banned from the AmITheAsshole sub. A man wanted to skip the birth of his daughter to watch the movie The Batman in theaters so he could avoid spoilers. I called him a manchild and was permanently banned. After 9 messages with a mod back and forth, they kept flip flopping on why the ban was enforced. They'd say something, I'd use their own rules to prove them wrong, they'd try to point out something else, and I'd use their own rules against them again. Eventually they settled on the fact I used the term \"manchild\". That is an insult worthy of a permanent ban in their eyes. In my experience, you cannot get bans overturned on Reddit, even when it's a minor innocuous infraction like this. Every single subreddit has at least one mod, if not more, who is solely there for power tripping rather than wanting to actually make a subreddit better. There's no accountability for mods power tripping. There's no place to complain about them, and Reddit itself doesn't care about individual subreddits. I just 95% of what they do doesn't contribute anything meaningful. They could all be replaced with bots and we'd be better off. Every single encounter with a Reddit mod has left me with the feeling they closely resemble the mod from the Antiwork subreddit who did the Fox News interview and got openly laughed at.","c_root_id_A":"hwfcp3l","c_root_id_B":"hwf9m5n","created_at_utc_A":1644530125,"created_at_utc_B":1644528990,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In a sense mods own the sub so if it's their wish for the sub to be an absolute shithole, that's too bad, you can simply start a better alternative which of course is difficult if it's a popular sub we're talking about. But the idea that they should be accountable to someone makes no sense. In my experience mods on reddit are some of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with. Most often they don't even bother to explain why they remove a post, just set an automoderator to remove everything containing certain keywords automatically and make users figure out what's wrong which of course is waste of anyone's time and is just disrespectful. I've yet to see a single encounter with a reddit moderator after which I'm like \"ok, nice, that was reasonable\".","human_ref_B":"Reddit relies on the free labour of mods, that's their business model. Reddit gets curated content for free and also gets ad revenue. In return, mods get power and content creators get internet points.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1135.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"52rwd2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: I don't think Gender Fluid is a valid gender identity. So I recently had an argument with my friends on the validity of gender fluid people. I don\u2019t see them as a valid gender(or identity or whatever the right word is) because of two reasons, first there is literally no requirement to become genderfluid, me a cis het person could simply say I\u2019m genderfluid and then boom I am genderfluid. Second I don\u2019t see anyone other than teenagers and college students being genderfluid so all I see it as is people who are insecure and see themselves as boring so they make up shit (eg. being genderfluid) to make them feel like they have some interesting fact to themselves. I also notice in nature that animals can be gay and animals can transition from one gender to another, but I\u2019ve never heard of an animal being gender fluid. So it leads me to believe that the concept of gender fluidity is a human construct or a sign of mental illness. I\u2019m clearly no expert in gender and I can see how someone would view this overly harsh, so if anyone can explain to me how I am wrong please do.","c_root_id_A":"d7muze1","c_root_id_B":"d7nzaac","created_at_utc_A":1473883395,"created_at_utc_B":1473956829,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">I also notice in nature that animals can be gay and animals can transition from one gender to another This makes it sound like you're talking about physical attributes, so I wonder if part of the issue is that you're conflating anatomical sex with gender identity in humans. The whole point of gender fluidity is that no one should have to conform to a certain set of norms or stereotypes based purely on their anatomy at birth. Do you have objections to someone being transgender? What about someone dressing like the opposite sex? If not then you already agree that there are issues with associating the concepts of anatomy and identity too closely. What if someone is born intersex? Is it ok for them to be genderfluid, but just not other people? >there is literally no requirement to become genderfluid, me a cis het person could simply say I\u2019m genderfluid and then boom I am genderfluid Once we separate the ideas of anatomy and identity, I think you actually hit the nail on the head with that statement. There's no requirement to become genderfluid because there's no requirement to identify as *any* gender. I can say I identify as male and then boom I identify as male.","human_ref_B":"I identify as \"gender fluid\". I think this is the perfect label for me because there are times where I am perfectly content with my body, and other times where I fervently desire to have the opposite genitalia\/body. What other term would you suggest for someone like me?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":73434.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"52rwd2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: I don't think Gender Fluid is a valid gender identity. So I recently had an argument with my friends on the validity of gender fluid people. I don\u2019t see them as a valid gender(or identity or whatever the right word is) because of two reasons, first there is literally no requirement to become genderfluid, me a cis het person could simply say I\u2019m genderfluid and then boom I am genderfluid. Second I don\u2019t see anyone other than teenagers and college students being genderfluid so all I see it as is people who are insecure and see themselves as boring so they make up shit (eg. being genderfluid) to make them feel like they have some interesting fact to themselves. I also notice in nature that animals can be gay and animals can transition from one gender to another, but I\u2019ve never heard of an animal being gender fluid. So it leads me to believe that the concept of gender fluidity is a human construct or a sign of mental illness. I\u2019m clearly no expert in gender and I can see how someone would view this overly harsh, so if anyone can explain to me how I am wrong please do.","c_root_id_A":"d7nzaac","c_root_id_B":"d7nm6na","created_at_utc_A":1473956829,"created_at_utc_B":1473933557,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I identify as \"gender fluid\". I think this is the perfect label for me because there are times where I am perfectly content with my body, and other times where I fervently desire to have the opposite genitalia\/body. What other term would you suggest for someone like me?","human_ref_B":"Isn't it just \"I'll act like whatever i feel like\"? Seems like the most valid thing of all. I wish I was more like that and also that that way of being was considered normal.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23272.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"52rwd2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: I don't think Gender Fluid is a valid gender identity. So I recently had an argument with my friends on the validity of gender fluid people. I don\u2019t see them as a valid gender(or identity or whatever the right word is) because of two reasons, first there is literally no requirement to become genderfluid, me a cis het person could simply say I\u2019m genderfluid and then boom I am genderfluid. Second I don\u2019t see anyone other than teenagers and college students being genderfluid so all I see it as is people who are insecure and see themselves as boring so they make up shit (eg. being genderfluid) to make them feel like they have some interesting fact to themselves. I also notice in nature that animals can be gay and animals can transition from one gender to another, but I\u2019ve never heard of an animal being gender fluid. So it leads me to believe that the concept of gender fluidity is a human construct or a sign of mental illness. I\u2019m clearly no expert in gender and I can see how someone would view this overly harsh, so if anyone can explain to me how I am wrong please do.","c_root_id_A":"d7nzaac","c_root_id_B":"d7mvogq","created_at_utc_A":1473956829,"created_at_utc_B":1473884230,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I identify as \"gender fluid\". I think this is the perfect label for me because there are times where I am perfectly content with my body, and other times where I fervently desire to have the opposite genitalia\/body. What other term would you suggest for someone like me?","human_ref_B":"What often happens in these discussions about gender is that certain terms and ideas get mixed up, and I suspect that you and your friends may simply be talking past each other. So, just some quickie terminology so we're on the same page: Sex - Your biological sex Gender - Basically your \"mental sex\" Gender Identity - What you think of your gender as Gender Performance - How your gender gets expressed through your actions (such as hair style, clothes, etc) Gender Role - What society expects of you based on your gender I've found that a lot of the time, when people talk about being \"gender fluid\" or \"non-binary,\" they're not talking about their Gender, but rather Gender Expression, or are talking about rejecting their Gender Role. I'm a cis male, and I like Gilmore Girls. If I veg out to a Gilmore Girls marathon, I didn't just become non-binary, or change by gender. Still cis male. What happened was I maybe had an atypical Gender Performance, or acted outside by Gender Role. My Gender stayed just where it was though.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":72599.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"52rwd2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: I don't think Gender Fluid is a valid gender identity. So I recently had an argument with my friends on the validity of gender fluid people. I don\u2019t see them as a valid gender(or identity or whatever the right word is) because of two reasons, first there is literally no requirement to become genderfluid, me a cis het person could simply say I\u2019m genderfluid and then boom I am genderfluid. Second I don\u2019t see anyone other than teenagers and college students being genderfluid so all I see it as is people who are insecure and see themselves as boring so they make up shit (eg. being genderfluid) to make them feel like they have some interesting fact to themselves. I also notice in nature that animals can be gay and animals can transition from one gender to another, but I\u2019ve never heard of an animal being gender fluid. So it leads me to believe that the concept of gender fluidity is a human construct or a sign of mental illness. I\u2019m clearly no expert in gender and I can see how someone would view this overly harsh, so if anyone can explain to me how I am wrong please do.","c_root_id_A":"d7nm6na","c_root_id_B":"d7muze1","created_at_utc_A":1473933557,"created_at_utc_B":1473883395,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Isn't it just \"I'll act like whatever i feel like\"? Seems like the most valid thing of all. I wish I was more like that and also that that way of being was considered normal.","human_ref_B":">I also notice in nature that animals can be gay and animals can transition from one gender to another This makes it sound like you're talking about physical attributes, so I wonder if part of the issue is that you're conflating anatomical sex with gender identity in humans. The whole point of gender fluidity is that no one should have to conform to a certain set of norms or stereotypes based purely on their anatomy at birth. Do you have objections to someone being transgender? What about someone dressing like the opposite sex? If not then you already agree that there are issues with associating the concepts of anatomy and identity too closely. What if someone is born intersex? Is it ok for them to be genderfluid, but just not other people? >there is literally no requirement to become genderfluid, me a cis het person could simply say I\u2019m genderfluid and then boom I am genderfluid Once we separate the ideas of anatomy and identity, I think you actually hit the nail on the head with that statement. There's no requirement to become genderfluid because there's no requirement to identify as *any* gender. I can say I identify as male and then boom I identify as male.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":50162.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"52rwd2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"CMV: I don't think Gender Fluid is a valid gender identity. So I recently had an argument with my friends on the validity of gender fluid people. I don\u2019t see them as a valid gender(or identity or whatever the right word is) because of two reasons, first there is literally no requirement to become genderfluid, me a cis het person could simply say I\u2019m genderfluid and then boom I am genderfluid. Second I don\u2019t see anyone other than teenagers and college students being genderfluid so all I see it as is people who are insecure and see themselves as boring so they make up shit (eg. being genderfluid) to make them feel like they have some interesting fact to themselves. I also notice in nature that animals can be gay and animals can transition from one gender to another, but I\u2019ve never heard of an animal being gender fluid. So it leads me to believe that the concept of gender fluidity is a human construct or a sign of mental illness. I\u2019m clearly no expert in gender and I can see how someone would view this overly harsh, so if anyone can explain to me how I am wrong please do.","c_root_id_A":"d7nm6na","c_root_id_B":"d7mvogq","created_at_utc_A":1473933557,"created_at_utc_B":1473884230,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Isn't it just \"I'll act like whatever i feel like\"? Seems like the most valid thing of all. I wish I was more like that and also that that way of being was considered normal.","human_ref_B":"What often happens in these discussions about gender is that certain terms and ideas get mixed up, and I suspect that you and your friends may simply be talking past each other. So, just some quickie terminology so we're on the same page: Sex - Your biological sex Gender - Basically your \"mental sex\" Gender Identity - What you think of your gender as Gender Performance - How your gender gets expressed through your actions (such as hair style, clothes, etc) Gender Role - What society expects of you based on your gender I've found that a lot of the time, when people talk about being \"gender fluid\" or \"non-binary,\" they're not talking about their Gender, but rather Gender Expression, or are talking about rejecting their Gender Role. I'm a cis male, and I like Gilmore Girls. If I veg out to a Gilmore Girls marathon, I didn't just become non-binary, or change by gender. Still cis male. What happened was I maybe had an atypical Gender Performance, or acted outside by Gender Role. My Gender stayed just where it was though.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":49327.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"t2bvcl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Roadside advertising should be illegal First a definition: By roadside advertising, I mean large billboards aimed at the occupants of cars, not storefronts, bus shelter adverts, or other things generally aimed at pedestrians. Every year, governments spend millions, if not billions of dollars advertising against things that cause distracted driving. I know of people who have been fined for removing their wallet from the pocket whilst driving, and even touching my phone is illegal (for good reason). Despite all of this, even more money is spent each year distracting us from our driving. Giant digital billboards flashing at us and demanding we read the information quickly before it changes meaning we aren't watching the traffic, people \"sign twirling\" trying to get us to look, even giant static billboards with a few seconds of text on them. This is time spent not watching the road and not being able to react to a change in the road conditions. I personally nearly had a rear ender caused by a billboard last week, and I'm quite conscious of the issue and have had this view for a few months. If we truly want a death toll of zero on the road (and my state government slap \"towards zero\" on every road safety advert, so they clearly claim that's the goal) we need to remove the distractions from around the road, not just in the car.","c_root_id_A":"hyn4rrv","c_root_id_B":"hym9zs9","created_at_utc_A":1645969075,"created_at_utc_B":1645946576,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I have NEVER been so distracted by about 5 words on a billboard that I lost sight of the road. Most billboards take moments to read, and are perhaps more directed at the passengers in a car than the driver. If you cannot keep focused on the driving task at hand, you probably should not drive (I have ADHD, and there are many days when I\u2019m out of medication and decide it\u2019s not safe for me to drive, so it\u2019s not like I\u2019m singling out other people, I take this advice myself) Billboards also often give directions (McDonald\u2019s next 3 exits) which could stop someone from pulling up their GPS to look for directions. Billboards are often just (or nearly just) photographs, which should be no more distracting than looking out your window to the world around you. Cities can make a ton of money off billboards, my small city put up a billboard and in 5 years it made enough revenue to build a community center that was paid for with 100% billboard money. It offers free\/low cost community education classes, is a place for group gatherings (like boy-scouts to have their meetings) and offers a gathering space for seniors in our community.","human_ref_B":"In a lot of places, like California, they are already banned. The existing billboards you see in California were grandfathered in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22499.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"t2bvcl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Roadside advertising should be illegal First a definition: By roadside advertising, I mean large billboards aimed at the occupants of cars, not storefronts, bus shelter adverts, or other things generally aimed at pedestrians. Every year, governments spend millions, if not billions of dollars advertising against things that cause distracted driving. I know of people who have been fined for removing their wallet from the pocket whilst driving, and even touching my phone is illegal (for good reason). Despite all of this, even more money is spent each year distracting us from our driving. Giant digital billboards flashing at us and demanding we read the information quickly before it changes meaning we aren't watching the traffic, people \"sign twirling\" trying to get us to look, even giant static billboards with a few seconds of text on them. This is time spent not watching the road and not being able to react to a change in the road conditions. I personally nearly had a rear ender caused by a billboard last week, and I'm quite conscious of the issue and have had this view for a few months. If we truly want a death toll of zero on the road (and my state government slap \"towards zero\" on every road safety advert, so they clearly claim that's the goal) we need to remove the distractions from around the road, not just in the car.","c_root_id_A":"hymdjx0","c_root_id_B":"hyn4rrv","created_at_utc_A":1645949120,"created_at_utc_B":1645969075,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Driving is an activity mostly conducted on autopilot. Ever get lost in your thoughts and can't remember a thing about the last 5 miles? Thoughts are distracting, having a conversation with your passenger is distracting. Should we ban those things? If a passenger is more distracting than a road sign, consider that the sign is advertising to them, not you. If\/when cars become autonomous, should they put the signs back? What constitutes a big enough road to count? What constitutes a large enough sign to count? By proposing to ban road side advertisements, you've narrowed in on one source of visual blight in one landscape. Why? The negative effects of visual blight span a long list and driver distraction is just one of the smaller problems. Four US states have banned large outdoor ads everywhere. Several European countries have as well. Also, the city of Sao Paulo is a fascinating case. Driver distraction in these cases isn't the main reason. It's blight. Banning roadside ads because they are distracting is a half-measure for a half-reason. Ban all large public outdoor advertising, because it's easier to define and it solves more problems than distraction.","human_ref_B":"I have NEVER been so distracted by about 5 words on a billboard that I lost sight of the road. Most billboards take moments to read, and are perhaps more directed at the passengers in a car than the driver. If you cannot keep focused on the driving task at hand, you probably should not drive (I have ADHD, and there are many days when I\u2019m out of medication and decide it\u2019s not safe for me to drive, so it\u2019s not like I\u2019m singling out other people, I take this advice myself) Billboards also often give directions (McDonald\u2019s next 3 exits) which could stop someone from pulling up their GPS to look for directions. Billboards are often just (or nearly just) photographs, which should be no more distracting than looking out your window to the world around you. Cities can make a ton of money off billboards, my small city put up a billboard and in 5 years it made enough revenue to build a community center that was paid for with 100% billboard money. It offers free\/low cost community education classes, is a place for group gatherings (like boy-scouts to have their meetings) and offers a gathering space for seniors in our community.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19955.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"t2bvcl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Roadside advertising should be illegal First a definition: By roadside advertising, I mean large billboards aimed at the occupants of cars, not storefronts, bus shelter adverts, or other things generally aimed at pedestrians. Every year, governments spend millions, if not billions of dollars advertising against things that cause distracted driving. I know of people who have been fined for removing their wallet from the pocket whilst driving, and even touching my phone is illegal (for good reason). Despite all of this, even more money is spent each year distracting us from our driving. Giant digital billboards flashing at us and demanding we read the information quickly before it changes meaning we aren't watching the traffic, people \"sign twirling\" trying to get us to look, even giant static billboards with a few seconds of text on them. This is time spent not watching the road and not being able to react to a change in the road conditions. I personally nearly had a rear ender caused by a billboard last week, and I'm quite conscious of the issue and have had this view for a few months. If we truly want a death toll of zero on the road (and my state government slap \"towards zero\" on every road safety advert, so they clearly claim that's the goal) we need to remove the distractions from around the road, not just in the car.","c_root_id_A":"hyn4rrv","c_root_id_B":"hymhwni","created_at_utc_A":1645969075,"created_at_utc_B":1645952425,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I have NEVER been so distracted by about 5 words on a billboard that I lost sight of the road. Most billboards take moments to read, and are perhaps more directed at the passengers in a car than the driver. If you cannot keep focused on the driving task at hand, you probably should not drive (I have ADHD, and there are many days when I\u2019m out of medication and decide it\u2019s not safe for me to drive, so it\u2019s not like I\u2019m singling out other people, I take this advice myself) Billboards also often give directions (McDonald\u2019s next 3 exits) which could stop someone from pulling up their GPS to look for directions. Billboards are often just (or nearly just) photographs, which should be no more distracting than looking out your window to the world around you. Cities can make a ton of money off billboards, my small city put up a billboard and in 5 years it made enough revenue to build a community center that was paid for with 100% billboard money. It offers free\/low cost community education classes, is a place for group gatherings (like boy-scouts to have their meetings) and offers a gathering space for seniors in our community.","human_ref_B":"Should everything that could possibly have a negative consequence be illegal? Of course, there is no absolute right answer for when something is causing enough harm vs good to be legal or illegal. Just as there is no \"right\" blood alcohol limit for what is ok and what is a DUI. So, how large of a sign is ILLEGAL, and how large is OK? If you're suggesting legislation, someone has to come up with an exact size (eg: exactly how far from the road, exactly how tall, moving or not moving, in exactly these places). I think it's tough to say \"bus stop ad...ok. Bumper sticker...ok. Bright yellow Ferarri...distracting...not ok\" because it's so subjective.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16650.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"t2bvcl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Roadside advertising should be illegal First a definition: By roadside advertising, I mean large billboards aimed at the occupants of cars, not storefronts, bus shelter adverts, or other things generally aimed at pedestrians. Every year, governments spend millions, if not billions of dollars advertising against things that cause distracted driving. I know of people who have been fined for removing their wallet from the pocket whilst driving, and even touching my phone is illegal (for good reason). Despite all of this, even more money is spent each year distracting us from our driving. Giant digital billboards flashing at us and demanding we read the information quickly before it changes meaning we aren't watching the traffic, people \"sign twirling\" trying to get us to look, even giant static billboards with a few seconds of text on them. This is time spent not watching the road and not being able to react to a change in the road conditions. I personally nearly had a rear ender caused by a billboard last week, and I'm quite conscious of the issue and have had this view for a few months. If we truly want a death toll of zero on the road (and my state government slap \"towards zero\" on every road safety advert, so they clearly claim that's the goal) we need to remove the distractions from around the road, not just in the car.","c_root_id_A":"hymfkgm","c_root_id_B":"hyn4rrv","created_at_utc_A":1645950638,"created_at_utc_B":1645969075,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"All of life (and policy) is about compromise. For instance, the safest way to drive would be to only allow 1 vehicle on the road at any given time, or even to disallow stereo systems. Similarly, disallowing billboards hurts local business (clearly) since they can't find customers (ie: the gigantic McDonald's signs and so forth).","human_ref_B":"I have NEVER been so distracted by about 5 words on a billboard that I lost sight of the road. Most billboards take moments to read, and are perhaps more directed at the passengers in a car than the driver. If you cannot keep focused on the driving task at hand, you probably should not drive (I have ADHD, and there are many days when I\u2019m out of medication and decide it\u2019s not safe for me to drive, so it\u2019s not like I\u2019m singling out other people, I take this advice myself) Billboards also often give directions (McDonald\u2019s next 3 exits) which could stop someone from pulling up their GPS to look for directions. Billboards are often just (or nearly just) photographs, which should be no more distracting than looking out your window to the world around you. Cities can make a ton of money off billboards, my small city put up a billboard and in 5 years it made enough revenue to build a community center that was paid for with 100% billboard money. It offers free\/low cost community education classes, is a place for group gatherings (like boy-scouts to have their meetings) and offers a gathering space for seniors in our community.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18437.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"t2bvcl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Roadside advertising should be illegal First a definition: By roadside advertising, I mean large billboards aimed at the occupants of cars, not storefronts, bus shelter adverts, or other things generally aimed at pedestrians. Every year, governments spend millions, if not billions of dollars advertising against things that cause distracted driving. I know of people who have been fined for removing their wallet from the pocket whilst driving, and even touching my phone is illegal (for good reason). Despite all of this, even more money is spent each year distracting us from our driving. Giant digital billboards flashing at us and demanding we read the information quickly before it changes meaning we aren't watching the traffic, people \"sign twirling\" trying to get us to look, even giant static billboards with a few seconds of text on them. This is time spent not watching the road and not being able to react to a change in the road conditions. I personally nearly had a rear ender caused by a billboard last week, and I'm quite conscious of the issue and have had this view for a few months. If we truly want a death toll of zero on the road (and my state government slap \"towards zero\" on every road safety advert, so they clearly claim that's the goal) we need to remove the distractions from around the road, not just in the car.","c_root_id_A":"hymhwni","c_root_id_B":"hymfkgm","created_at_utc_A":1645952425,"created_at_utc_B":1645950638,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Should everything that could possibly have a negative consequence be illegal? Of course, there is no absolute right answer for when something is causing enough harm vs good to be legal or illegal. Just as there is no \"right\" blood alcohol limit for what is ok and what is a DUI. So, how large of a sign is ILLEGAL, and how large is OK? If you're suggesting legislation, someone has to come up with an exact size (eg: exactly how far from the road, exactly how tall, moving or not moving, in exactly these places). I think it's tough to say \"bus stop ad...ok. Bumper sticker...ok. Bright yellow Ferarri...distracting...not ok\" because it's so subjective.","human_ref_B":"All of life (and policy) is about compromise. For instance, the safest way to drive would be to only allow 1 vehicle on the road at any given time, or even to disallow stereo systems. Similarly, disallowing billboards hurts local business (clearly) since they can't find customers (ie: the gigantic McDonald's signs and so forth).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1787.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"t2bvcl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"CMV: Roadside advertising should be illegal First a definition: By roadside advertising, I mean large billboards aimed at the occupants of cars, not storefronts, bus shelter adverts, or other things generally aimed at pedestrians. Every year, governments spend millions, if not billions of dollars advertising against things that cause distracted driving. I know of people who have been fined for removing their wallet from the pocket whilst driving, and even touching my phone is illegal (for good reason). Despite all of this, even more money is spent each year distracting us from our driving. Giant digital billboards flashing at us and demanding we read the information quickly before it changes meaning we aren't watching the traffic, people \"sign twirling\" trying to get us to look, even giant static billboards with a few seconds of text on them. This is time spent not watching the road and not being able to react to a change in the road conditions. I personally nearly had a rear ender caused by a billboard last week, and I'm quite conscious of the issue and have had this view for a few months. If we truly want a death toll of zero on the road (and my state government slap \"towards zero\" on every road safety advert, so they clearly claim that's the goal) we need to remove the distractions from around the road, not just in the car.","c_root_id_A":"hymfkgm","c_root_id_B":"hyn9ix5","created_at_utc_A":1645950638,"created_at_utc_B":1645971571,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"All of life (and policy) is about compromise. For instance, the safest way to drive would be to only allow 1 vehicle on the road at any given time, or even to disallow stereo systems. Similarly, disallowing billboards hurts local business (clearly) since they can't find customers (ie: the gigantic McDonald's signs and so forth).","human_ref_B":"Last week I was driving the entire width of Kansas. My drive was about nine hours if driving down an almost completely straight road. I stopped a few times for meals, and I identified where I was going to stop because restaurants tended to have billboards a few miles ahead of their exits. Barring these roadside ads, how was I going to figure out where I wanted to eat? Get my phone out and check it while I was driving? Ads at the side of the road seem like the safer option.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20933.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqidpw6","c_root_id_B":"cqidcpp","created_at_utc_A":1429529035,"created_at_utc_B":1429527565,"score_A":35,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":">In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position ... because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. Why exactly do you believe this? Where have you got the idea that many, if not most, working class people are irresponsible with money? Do you have any evidence of this?","human_ref_B":"Are there people out there who support welfare and social programs but *don't* also believe that education is important? > My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Welfare is not designed to stop poverty. It is only one piece of the puzzle. > massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers. Massive social welfare benefits help tons of people. How about children who need to go to school to learn proper financial management? They'll have difficulty learning if they don't eat and go to school hungry. Sometimes life hits people hard and they need some help to get back on their feet, and it is a good thing that these programs exist. People need to eat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1470.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqidpw6","c_root_id_B":"cqidhyl","created_at_utc_A":1429529035,"created_at_utc_B":1429528166,"score_A":35,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position ... because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. Why exactly do you believe this? Where have you got the idea that many, if not most, working class people are irresponsible with money? Do you have any evidence of this?","human_ref_B":"The point of social programs isn't to \"erase poverty\" but rather help people cope with it. Your concern over \"poor money management\" is why many states are introducing regulations on what welfare recipients can spend their money on(IE no adult entertainment or alcohol), and they also control it by providing food stamps as aid that have a specific purpose. Of course, there are people that abuse welfare by refusing to work or even selling food stamps for drug money, but this can be fixed with further legislation(selling food stamps is illegal). Welfare is really helpful in some cases. I knew someone that lost their job, welfare helped her support her family while she looked for another job. Who knows what could have happened if welfare wasn't available. The issue is when perfectly capable individuals refuse to work, and live off of welfare. That's why many states require you to prove you're making an effort to find a job in order to be eligible. I think she had to apply to 2 places a week to qualify.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":869.0,"score_ratio":11.6666666667} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqiek2v","c_root_id_B":"cqif97t","created_at_utc_A":1429531968,"created_at_utc_B":1429534017,"score_A":17,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"I don't see how it can be both true that a) welfare payments are a burden to the taxpayer, and b) welfare payments get immediately spent. Where does that money go after they spend it? Dollar heaven?","human_ref_B":"> My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. That sounds like rhetoric, not data. Many European nations have substantially lower poverty rates and equally strong, if not better, economies because of their social safety nets. Sure you can go overboard with that stuff (see Greece), but the Germanic and Scandinavian countries (and to a lesser extent France & UK) have done a better job than us here. > no self-control when it comes to spending What are you basing that on, exactly? Are you suggesting that the working class shouldn't spend any of their money on entertainment? It strikes me as not unreasonable to spend ~10% of one's income on entertainment\/hobbies\/whatever. The fact that someone that's \"poor\" saved up for something important to them doesn't strictly make them irresponsible. Financial education is a good thing, sure. But the stagnation of middle class wages and increase in costs is real. Financial institutions are preying upon the poor... and sure, education can mitigate that somewhat - but the interest rates \/ fees cycle is damn near impossible to break and awful unethical. > My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty You seem to be fixated on \"welfare\" in the the US. The vilification of the welfare program is bizarre to me, as is the statement that it's \"massive\". It's 0.1% of the budget. I mean, I agree that the US welfare program doesn't aggressively combat root issues (education \/ health care \/ transportation costs, inequalities in public ed & police protection) and merely prevents the poor from starving. We need to do *a lot* more of the former. Direct income supplements aren't the answer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2049.0,"score_ratio":1.8235294118} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqif97t","c_root_id_B":"cqidcpp","created_at_utc_A":1429534017,"created_at_utc_B":1429527565,"score_A":31,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"> My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. That sounds like rhetoric, not data. Many European nations have substantially lower poverty rates and equally strong, if not better, economies because of their social safety nets. Sure you can go overboard with that stuff (see Greece), but the Germanic and Scandinavian countries (and to a lesser extent France & UK) have done a better job than us here. > no self-control when it comes to spending What are you basing that on, exactly? Are you suggesting that the working class shouldn't spend any of their money on entertainment? It strikes me as not unreasonable to spend ~10% of one's income on entertainment\/hobbies\/whatever. The fact that someone that's \"poor\" saved up for something important to them doesn't strictly make them irresponsible. Financial education is a good thing, sure. But the stagnation of middle class wages and increase in costs is real. Financial institutions are preying upon the poor... and sure, education can mitigate that somewhat - but the interest rates \/ fees cycle is damn near impossible to break and awful unethical. > My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty You seem to be fixated on \"welfare\" in the the US. The vilification of the welfare program is bizarre to me, as is the statement that it's \"massive\". It's 0.1% of the budget. I mean, I agree that the US welfare program doesn't aggressively combat root issues (education \/ health care \/ transportation costs, inequalities in public ed & police protection) and merely prevents the poor from starving. We need to do *a lot* more of the former. Direct income supplements aren't the answer.","human_ref_B":"Are there people out there who support welfare and social programs but *don't* also believe that education is important? > My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Welfare is not designed to stop poverty. It is only one piece of the puzzle. > massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers. Massive social welfare benefits help tons of people. How about children who need to go to school to learn proper financial management? They'll have difficulty learning if they don't eat and go to school hungry. Sometimes life hits people hard and they need some help to get back on their feet, and it is a good thing that these programs exist. People need to eat.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6452.0,"score_ratio":2.2142857143} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqif97t","c_root_id_B":"cqidhyl","created_at_utc_A":1429534017,"created_at_utc_B":1429528166,"score_A":31,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. That sounds like rhetoric, not data. Many European nations have substantially lower poverty rates and equally strong, if not better, economies because of their social safety nets. Sure you can go overboard with that stuff (see Greece), but the Germanic and Scandinavian countries (and to a lesser extent France & UK) have done a better job than us here. > no self-control when it comes to spending What are you basing that on, exactly? Are you suggesting that the working class shouldn't spend any of their money on entertainment? It strikes me as not unreasonable to spend ~10% of one's income on entertainment\/hobbies\/whatever. The fact that someone that's \"poor\" saved up for something important to them doesn't strictly make them irresponsible. Financial education is a good thing, sure. But the stagnation of middle class wages and increase in costs is real. Financial institutions are preying upon the poor... and sure, education can mitigate that somewhat - but the interest rates \/ fees cycle is damn near impossible to break and awful unethical. > My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty You seem to be fixated on \"welfare\" in the the US. The vilification of the welfare program is bizarre to me, as is the statement that it's \"massive\". It's 0.1% of the budget. I mean, I agree that the US welfare program doesn't aggressively combat root issues (education \/ health care \/ transportation costs, inequalities in public ed & police protection) and merely prevents the poor from starving. We need to do *a lot* more of the former. Direct income supplements aren't the answer.","human_ref_B":"The point of social programs isn't to \"erase poverty\" but rather help people cope with it. Your concern over \"poor money management\" is why many states are introducing regulations on what welfare recipients can spend their money on(IE no adult entertainment or alcohol), and they also control it by providing food stamps as aid that have a specific purpose. Of course, there are people that abuse welfare by refusing to work or even selling food stamps for drug money, but this can be fixed with further legislation(selling food stamps is illegal). Welfare is really helpful in some cases. I knew someone that lost their job, welfare helped her support her family while she looked for another job. Who knows what could have happened if welfare wasn't available. The issue is when perfectly capable individuals refuse to work, and live off of welfare. That's why many states require you to prove you're making an effort to find a job in order to be eligible. I think she had to apply to 2 places a week to qualify.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5851.0,"score_ratio":10.3333333333} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqif97t","c_root_id_B":"cqidrz8","created_at_utc_A":1429534017,"created_at_utc_B":1429529254,"score_A":31,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. That sounds like rhetoric, not data. Many European nations have substantially lower poverty rates and equally strong, if not better, economies because of their social safety nets. Sure you can go overboard with that stuff (see Greece), but the Germanic and Scandinavian countries (and to a lesser extent France & UK) have done a better job than us here. > no self-control when it comes to spending What are you basing that on, exactly? Are you suggesting that the working class shouldn't spend any of their money on entertainment? It strikes me as not unreasonable to spend ~10% of one's income on entertainment\/hobbies\/whatever. The fact that someone that's \"poor\" saved up for something important to them doesn't strictly make them irresponsible. Financial education is a good thing, sure. But the stagnation of middle class wages and increase in costs is real. Financial institutions are preying upon the poor... and sure, education can mitigate that somewhat - but the interest rates \/ fees cycle is damn near impossible to break and awful unethical. > My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty You seem to be fixated on \"welfare\" in the the US. The vilification of the welfare program is bizarre to me, as is the statement that it's \"massive\". It's 0.1% of the budget. I mean, I agree that the US welfare program doesn't aggressively combat root issues (education \/ health care \/ transportation costs, inequalities in public ed & police protection) and merely prevents the poor from starving. We need to do *a lot* more of the former. Direct income supplements aren't the answer.","human_ref_B":"Money is universal, if it can't fix a problem directly it can be a means to a solution. So I would say (dollar for dollar) money is the most helpful thing you can give someone in need. What they do with it from there is a different problem. Sure there will be people that abuse it but there are many that it does help. And the more you restrict the money given in attempts to restrict abusers the more you also restrict the people that will put that money to good use. Many countries do provide education for free to everybody for at least 12 years. And adding personal finance to the curriculum is probably a good idea and will help more then just the most poverty proan populations , but hardly a solution to poverty or a replacement to a welfare program.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4763.0,"score_ratio":10.3333333333} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqidcpp","c_root_id_B":"cqiek2v","created_at_utc_A":1429527565,"created_at_utc_B":1429531968,"score_A":14,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Are there people out there who support welfare and social programs but *don't* also believe that education is important? > My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Welfare is not designed to stop poverty. It is only one piece of the puzzle. > massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers. Massive social welfare benefits help tons of people. How about children who need to go to school to learn proper financial management? They'll have difficulty learning if they don't eat and go to school hungry. Sometimes life hits people hard and they need some help to get back on their feet, and it is a good thing that these programs exist. People need to eat.","human_ref_B":"I don't see how it can be both true that a) welfare payments are a burden to the taxpayer, and b) welfare payments get immediately spent. Where does that money go after they spend it? Dollar heaven?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4403.0,"score_ratio":1.2142857143} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqidhyl","c_root_id_B":"cqiek2v","created_at_utc_A":1429528166,"created_at_utc_B":1429531968,"score_A":3,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"The point of social programs isn't to \"erase poverty\" but rather help people cope with it. Your concern over \"poor money management\" is why many states are introducing regulations on what welfare recipients can spend their money on(IE no adult entertainment or alcohol), and they also control it by providing food stamps as aid that have a specific purpose. Of course, there are people that abuse welfare by refusing to work or even selling food stamps for drug money, but this can be fixed with further legislation(selling food stamps is illegal). Welfare is really helpful in some cases. I knew someone that lost their job, welfare helped her support her family while she looked for another job. Who knows what could have happened if welfare wasn't available. The issue is when perfectly capable individuals refuse to work, and live off of welfare. That's why many states require you to prove you're making an effort to find a job in order to be eligible. I think she had to apply to 2 places a week to qualify.","human_ref_B":"I don't see how it can be both true that a) welfare payments are a burden to the taxpayer, and b) welfare payments get immediately spent. Where does that money go after they spend it? Dollar heaven?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3802.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqidrz8","c_root_id_B":"cqiek2v","created_at_utc_A":1429529254,"created_at_utc_B":1429531968,"score_A":3,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Money is universal, if it can't fix a problem directly it can be a means to a solution. So I would say (dollar for dollar) money is the most helpful thing you can give someone in need. What they do with it from there is a different problem. Sure there will be people that abuse it but there are many that it does help. And the more you restrict the money given in attempts to restrict abusers the more you also restrict the people that will put that money to good use. Many countries do provide education for free to everybody for at least 12 years. And adding personal finance to the curriculum is probably a good idea and will help more then just the most poverty proan populations , but hardly a solution to poverty or a replacement to a welfare program.","human_ref_B":"I don't see how it can be both true that a) welfare payments are a burden to the taxpayer, and b) welfare payments get immediately spent. Where does that money go after they spend it? Dollar heaven?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2714.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqift17","c_root_id_B":"cqidhyl","created_at_utc_A":1429535460,"created_at_utc_B":1429528166,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think it's easy to let yourself believe that, as if it somehow safeguards you against poverty because *you* can manage your money and *you* have self control. Kinda like people that say \"don't dress like a slut and you won't get raped.\" Only that's not how it works. Is it? Thinking that way may make you feel better, as if the world if just and predictable, but that's false. Poverty seems mostly circumstantial to me. I grew up in a stable, middle class home. I graduated from a four year university. I got a job with my degree right out of college. I worked and was self sufficient for years until a medical problem complicated my life beyond words, one thing led to another, and now I'm putting my life back together with the help of \"welfare.\" Oh, and working full time. You should know that there is no \"office of welfare.\" Applying for and maintaining your status on any of the various programs available *is a job in and of itself.* Seriously, it's not a quick or easy process. Some level of organizational management skills are necessary to keep up with it all. Most people on assistance are like me, *working a full time job* that does not pay a living wage. And I cant speak for us all, but I sure wish I was just paid a fair, decent wage instead so I would not need any assistance! So, be cautious of judging others. Life is long and complicated. You never know where you might find yourself.","human_ref_B":"The point of social programs isn't to \"erase poverty\" but rather help people cope with it. Your concern over \"poor money management\" is why many states are introducing regulations on what welfare recipients can spend their money on(IE no adult entertainment or alcohol), and they also control it by providing food stamps as aid that have a specific purpose. Of course, there are people that abuse welfare by refusing to work or even selling food stamps for drug money, but this can be fixed with further legislation(selling food stamps is illegal). Welfare is really helpful in some cases. I knew someone that lost their job, welfare helped her support her family while she looked for another job. Who knows what could have happened if welfare wasn't available. The issue is when perfectly capable individuals refuse to work, and live off of welfare. That's why many states require you to prove you're making an effort to find a job in order to be eligible. I think she had to apply to 2 places a week to qualify.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7294.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqidrz8","c_root_id_B":"cqift17","created_at_utc_A":1429529254,"created_at_utc_B":1429535460,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Money is universal, if it can't fix a problem directly it can be a means to a solution. So I would say (dollar for dollar) money is the most helpful thing you can give someone in need. What they do with it from there is a different problem. Sure there will be people that abuse it but there are many that it does help. And the more you restrict the money given in attempts to restrict abusers the more you also restrict the people that will put that money to good use. Many countries do provide education for free to everybody for at least 12 years. And adding personal finance to the curriculum is probably a good idea and will help more then just the most poverty proan populations , but hardly a solution to poverty or a replacement to a welfare program.","human_ref_B":"I think it's easy to let yourself believe that, as if it somehow safeguards you against poverty because *you* can manage your money and *you* have self control. Kinda like people that say \"don't dress like a slut and you won't get raped.\" Only that's not how it works. Is it? Thinking that way may make you feel better, as if the world if just and predictable, but that's false. Poverty seems mostly circumstantial to me. I grew up in a stable, middle class home. I graduated from a four year university. I got a job with my degree right out of college. I worked and was self sufficient for years until a medical problem complicated my life beyond words, one thing led to another, and now I'm putting my life back together with the help of \"welfare.\" Oh, and working full time. You should know that there is no \"office of welfare.\" Applying for and maintaining your status on any of the various programs available *is a job in and of itself.* Seriously, it's not a quick or easy process. Some level of organizational management skills are necessary to keep up with it all. Most people on assistance are like me, *working a full time job* that does not pay a living wage. And I cant speak for us all, but I sure wish I was just paid a fair, decent wage instead so I would not need any assistance! So, be cautious of judging others. Life is long and complicated. You never know where you might find yourself.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6206.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqigbq2","c_root_id_B":"cqidhyl","created_at_utc_A":1429536688,"created_at_utc_B":1429528166,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" Weight is controlled by many variables. You can't look at a fat guy and know why he's fat. So this analogy doesn't work. > you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. If you really think poor people on welfare are living the life of luxury, you've never seen the projects. You're making a lot of assumptions. >My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. Spending is half the equation. But if a person would only be able to earn $15k a year, financial classes won't change that they will always be in a deficit. There is a minimum amount of money a person must earn to afford food, clothes, shelter, medical care, and other absolute essentials. Doesn't matter how many classes a person takes, they still need those essentials. You need to consider why a person is in poverty. It could be mental illness. It could be physical disability. Could be that they live in a part of the country where unemployment is significant. Women with kids tend to be a group likely to end up in poverty. Did you know childcare [costs more than college]( http:\/\/money.cnn.com\/2014\/12\/04\/news\/economy\/child-care-costs-college\/)? Medical bills are a top reason why an ordinary person [can end up in bankruptcy]( http:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/id\/100840148). Now they have bad credit and probably reduced ability to work. Lecturing them to clip coupons or buy things on sale won't fix these problems. And the one big problem I have with how America does social programs is that there's this big gap between poverty level living with benefits and a living wage. raises and promotions happen incrementally. A person who keeps working full time and gets one or two little raises lose their benefits. Their quality of life drops significantly when they lose medical coverage. If the average family insurance plan [costs $22k]( http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/danmunro\/2013\/05\/22\/annual-healthcare-costs-surpasses-22000\/) and employees are still paying less than $10.00\/hour, what do they do? Do you work full time and lose heath coverage for your family knowing you can't afford to buy it out right? Or do you work a little less, get health needs met (medicaid), and also get food and childcare subsidized? Being poor isn't fun. Instead of seeing them as lacking self control or being dumb, I propose we address the social and economic reasons why people end up earning so little they can't afford essentials and are eligible for welfare.","human_ref_B":"The point of social programs isn't to \"erase poverty\" but rather help people cope with it. Your concern over \"poor money management\" is why many states are introducing regulations on what welfare recipients can spend their money on(IE no adult entertainment or alcohol), and they also control it by providing food stamps as aid that have a specific purpose. Of course, there are people that abuse welfare by refusing to work or even selling food stamps for drug money, but this can be fixed with further legislation(selling food stamps is illegal). Welfare is really helpful in some cases. I knew someone that lost their job, welfare helped her support her family while she looked for another job. Who knows what could have happened if welfare wasn't available. The issue is when perfectly capable individuals refuse to work, and live off of welfare. That's why many states require you to prove you're making an effort to find a job in order to be eligible. I think she had to apply to 2 places a week to qualify.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8522.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"337yvz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two. In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves. Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers.","c_root_id_A":"cqigbq2","c_root_id_B":"cqidrz8","created_at_utc_A":1429536688,"created_at_utc_B":1429529254,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always \"rewards himself with a burger \/ fries \/ cake\" Weight is controlled by many variables. You can't look at a fat guy and know why he's fat. So this analogy doesn't work. > you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the \"poor folk\" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you. If you really think poor people on welfare are living the life of luxury, you've never seen the projects. You're making a lot of assumptions. >My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of \"working class\" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. Spending is half the equation. But if a person would only be able to earn $15k a year, financial classes won't change that they will always be in a deficit. There is a minimum amount of money a person must earn to afford food, clothes, shelter, medical care, and other absolute essentials. Doesn't matter how many classes a person takes, they still need those essentials. You need to consider why a person is in poverty. It could be mental illness. It could be physical disability. Could be that they live in a part of the country where unemployment is significant. Women with kids tend to be a group likely to end up in poverty. Did you know childcare [costs more than college]( http:\/\/money.cnn.com\/2014\/12\/04\/news\/economy\/child-care-costs-college\/)? Medical bills are a top reason why an ordinary person [can end up in bankruptcy]( http:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/id\/100840148). Now they have bad credit and probably reduced ability to work. Lecturing them to clip coupons or buy things on sale won't fix these problems. And the one big problem I have with how America does social programs is that there's this big gap between poverty level living with benefits and a living wage. raises and promotions happen incrementally. A person who keeps working full time and gets one or two little raises lose their benefits. Their quality of life drops significantly when they lose medical coverage. If the average family insurance plan [costs $22k]( http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/danmunro\/2013\/05\/22\/annual-healthcare-costs-surpasses-22000\/) and employees are still paying less than $10.00\/hour, what do they do? Do you work full time and lose heath coverage for your family knowing you can't afford to buy it out right? Or do you work a little less, get health needs met (medicaid), and also get food and childcare subsidized? Being poor isn't fun. Instead of seeing them as lacking self control or being dumb, I propose we address the social and economic reasons why people end up earning so little they can't afford essentials and are eligible for welfare.","human_ref_B":"Money is universal, if it can't fix a problem directly it can be a means to a solution. So I would say (dollar for dollar) money is the most helpful thing you can give someone in need. What they do with it from there is a different problem. Sure there will be people that abuse it but there are many that it does help. And the more you restrict the money given in attempts to restrict abusers the more you also restrict the people that will put that money to good use. Many countries do provide education for free to everybody for at least 12 years. And adding personal finance to the curriculum is probably a good idea and will help more then just the most poverty proan populations , but hardly a solution to poverty or a replacement to a welfare program.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7434.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"466efe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Facebook's \"new\" policy on deleting or \"shutting down\" racist, homophobic, or other derogatory comments is wrong and essentially an infringement upon an individual's right of identity and their freedom. Facebook has supposedly always held a standard for posting content, but apparently more recently they have promised to crack down on hateful posts and comments. Now, it isn't as if I'm afraid the content I post (or my character) will be comoronised, because I'd like to believe I'm a generally open minded individual. However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. Although in theory, greater restrictions on hate posts seem like a great idea, a few questions that come to mind are: Who will moderate what's right and what's wrong? Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity -- and aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime.","c_root_id_A":"d02tnnh","c_root_id_B":"d02td2h","created_at_utc_A":1455682143,"created_at_utc_B":1455681626,"score_A":788,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"A private company cannot take away your rights. You do not have a right to use their product to host your views. It's probably in their TOS that they can delete posts. If it was a major problem to it's users they would not do it.","human_ref_B":"A company can not restrict a persons freedom of expression by censoring them. That is not a right you have.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":517.0,"score_ratio":65.6666666667} {"post_id":"466efe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Facebook's \"new\" policy on deleting or \"shutting down\" racist, homophobic, or other derogatory comments is wrong and essentially an infringement upon an individual's right of identity and their freedom. Facebook has supposedly always held a standard for posting content, but apparently more recently they have promised to crack down on hateful posts and comments. Now, it isn't as if I'm afraid the content I post (or my character) will be comoronised, because I'd like to believe I'm a generally open minded individual. However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. Although in theory, greater restrictions on hate posts seem like a great idea, a few questions that come to mind are: Who will moderate what's right and what's wrong? Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity -- and aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime.","c_root_id_A":"d02td2h","c_root_id_B":"d02tx2f","created_at_utc_A":1455681626,"created_at_utc_B":1455682601,"score_A":12,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"A company can not restrict a persons freedom of expression by censoring them. That is not a right you have.","human_ref_B":"Do you believe that you have a greater right to write something on their pages, and save it to their servers than they do? Facebook is saying \"This place is not the place to discuss these things.\". It is their right to express (or not) their views with their software.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":975.0,"score_ratio":4.0833333333} {"post_id":"466efe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Facebook's \"new\" policy on deleting or \"shutting down\" racist, homophobic, or other derogatory comments is wrong and essentially an infringement upon an individual's right of identity and their freedom. Facebook has supposedly always held a standard for posting content, but apparently more recently they have promised to crack down on hateful posts and comments. Now, it isn't as if I'm afraid the content I post (or my character) will be comoronised, because I'd like to believe I'm a generally open minded individual. However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. Although in theory, greater restrictions on hate posts seem like a great idea, a few questions that come to mind are: Who will moderate what's right and what's wrong? Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity -- and aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime.","c_root_id_A":"d02td2h","c_root_id_B":"d02u3b1","created_at_utc_A":1455681626,"created_at_utc_B":1455682907,"score_A":12,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"A company can not restrict a persons freedom of expression by censoring them. That is not a right you have.","human_ref_B":"While I tend to agree that censorship usually isn't the best way to go about things, there's a big difference between a government doing this and a private business. Facebook (and any other company) can dictate the rules on how their platform is used. It isn't a right to go on their platform and say whatever you want, they're well within their reach to moderate that. As for a power balance, it's wholly irrelevant. Facebook has all the power they want in how a user interacts with their service within reason. If enough people are dissatisfied with Facebook's moderation, there will be plenty of market pressure for competitors to offer products and platforms that allow for it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1281.0,"score_ratio":1.5833333333} {"post_id":"466efe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Facebook's \"new\" policy on deleting or \"shutting down\" racist, homophobic, or other derogatory comments is wrong and essentially an infringement upon an individual's right of identity and their freedom. Facebook has supposedly always held a standard for posting content, but apparently more recently they have promised to crack down on hateful posts and comments. Now, it isn't as if I'm afraid the content I post (or my character) will be comoronised, because I'd like to believe I'm a generally open minded individual. However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. Although in theory, greater restrictions on hate posts seem like a great idea, a few questions that come to mind are: Who will moderate what's right and what's wrong? Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity -- and aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime.","c_root_id_A":"d02vdgd","c_root_id_B":"d0322pf","created_at_utc_A":1455685265,"created_at_utc_B":1455705610,"score_A":17,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"1. Facebook is a private company 2. Freedom of speech is not protected for private companies 3. Facebook should not determine your identity...","human_ref_B":"OP imagine if you owned a house, and rented out a room with a large window at the front. Now imagine that your renter puts a sign up, the full size of the window, that promotes pedophilia or say \"Kill all f*gs\" or supports the KKK. Technically, it's inside the room he pays to rent. But people are going to associate those views with everyone in the house. People who know you live there will think you support his views. Would you really be happy for him to keep up a sign like that? Or would you stipulate as part of his rental agreement that that wasn't acceptable? Now imagine that you're trying to offer your front garden as a photoshoot location or similar - where advertisers can use the image of the front of your house and pay you for it. Do you think many of them would be interested in using a photo with a pro-pedophilia message in it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20345.0,"score_ratio":1.0588235294} {"post_id":"466efe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Facebook's \"new\" policy on deleting or \"shutting down\" racist, homophobic, or other derogatory comments is wrong and essentially an infringement upon an individual's right of identity and their freedom. Facebook has supposedly always held a standard for posting content, but apparently more recently they have promised to crack down on hateful posts and comments. Now, it isn't as if I'm afraid the content I post (or my character) will be comoronised, because I'd like to believe I'm a generally open minded individual. However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. Although in theory, greater restrictions on hate posts seem like a great idea, a few questions that come to mind are: Who will moderate what's right and what's wrong? Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity -- and aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime.","c_root_id_A":"d02td2h","c_root_id_B":"d02vdgd","created_at_utc_A":1455681626,"created_at_utc_B":1455685265,"score_A":12,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"A company can not restrict a persons freedom of expression by censoring them. That is not a right you have.","human_ref_B":"1. Facebook is a private company 2. Freedom of speech is not protected for private companies 3. Facebook should not determine your identity...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3639.0,"score_ratio":1.4166666667} {"post_id":"466efe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Facebook's \"new\" policy on deleting or \"shutting down\" racist, homophobic, or other derogatory comments is wrong and essentially an infringement upon an individual's right of identity and their freedom. Facebook has supposedly always held a standard for posting content, but apparently more recently they have promised to crack down on hateful posts and comments. Now, it isn't as if I'm afraid the content I post (or my character) will be comoronised, because I'd like to believe I'm a generally open minded individual. However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. Although in theory, greater restrictions on hate posts seem like a great idea, a few questions that come to mind are: Who will moderate what's right and what's wrong? Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity -- and aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime.","c_root_id_A":"d02td2h","c_root_id_B":"d0322pf","created_at_utc_A":1455681626,"created_at_utc_B":1455705610,"score_A":12,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"A company can not restrict a persons freedom of expression by censoring them. That is not a right you have.","human_ref_B":"OP imagine if you owned a house, and rented out a room with a large window at the front. Now imagine that your renter puts a sign up, the full size of the window, that promotes pedophilia or say \"Kill all f*gs\" or supports the KKK. Technically, it's inside the room he pays to rent. But people are going to associate those views with everyone in the house. People who know you live there will think you support his views. Would you really be happy for him to keep up a sign like that? Or would you stipulate as part of his rental agreement that that wasn't acceptable? Now imagine that you're trying to offer your front garden as a photoshoot location or similar - where advertisers can use the image of the front of your house and pay you for it. Do you think many of them would be interested in using a photo with a pro-pedophilia message in it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23984.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"466efe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Facebook's \"new\" policy on deleting or \"shutting down\" racist, homophobic, or other derogatory comments is wrong and essentially an infringement upon an individual's right of identity and their freedom. Facebook has supposedly always held a standard for posting content, but apparently more recently they have promised to crack down on hateful posts and comments. Now, it isn't as if I'm afraid the content I post (or my character) will be comoronised, because I'd like to believe I'm a generally open minded individual. However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. Although in theory, greater restrictions on hate posts seem like a great idea, a few questions that come to mind are: Who will moderate what's right and what's wrong? Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity -- and aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime.","c_root_id_A":"d02wajr","c_root_id_B":"d0322pf","created_at_utc_A":1455687119,"created_at_utc_B":1455705610,"score_A":9,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"> Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? Yes it is, and if it becomes \"biased\", you move somewhere else. What about their freedom as community owners (freedom of association) to set and enforce community standards? >However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. That's one view of social media. I think others see it as the purpose is to connect people and build communities or facilitate human interaction, ideally with a pro-social intent. Under that point of view, allowing hate speech is awfully counter-productive. >aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime. Ultimately, maybe they are. However, while it does not directly address the problems of underlying attitudes - but socialization is a powerful force, and it can at least address the problem of that speech 'infecting' the thought-processes of others. There are a *wide* variety of identities and views and opinions out there. Restricting toxic, socially corrosive ones simply does not reduce to \"making everyone think identically.\"","human_ref_B":"OP imagine if you owned a house, and rented out a room with a large window at the front. Now imagine that your renter puts a sign up, the full size of the window, that promotes pedophilia or say \"Kill all f*gs\" or supports the KKK. Technically, it's inside the room he pays to rent. But people are going to associate those views with everyone in the house. People who know you live there will think you support his views. Would you really be happy for him to keep up a sign like that? Or would you stipulate as part of his rental agreement that that wasn't acceptable? Now imagine that you're trying to offer your front garden as a photoshoot location or similar - where advertisers can use the image of the front of your house and pay you for it. Do you think many of them would be interested in using a photo with a pro-pedophilia message in it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18491.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"466efe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Facebook's \"new\" policy on deleting or \"shutting down\" racist, homophobic, or other derogatory comments is wrong and essentially an infringement upon an individual's right of identity and their freedom. Facebook has supposedly always held a standard for posting content, but apparently more recently they have promised to crack down on hateful posts and comments. Now, it isn't as if I'm afraid the content I post (or my character) will be comoronised, because I'd like to believe I'm a generally open minded individual. However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. Although in theory, greater restrictions on hate posts seem like a great idea, a few questions that come to mind are: Who will moderate what's right and what's wrong? Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity -- and aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime.","c_root_id_A":"d02w7qm","c_root_id_B":"d0322pf","created_at_utc_A":1455686957,"created_at_utc_B":1455705610,"score_A":6,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"> I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity They are a private business, freedom of speech is not a protected right when it comes to private business' property. When you are posting and using Facebook you are using computers and networks that are owned by Facebook. Facebook can not infringe upon a right that you do not have.","human_ref_B":"OP imagine if you owned a house, and rented out a room with a large window at the front. Now imagine that your renter puts a sign up, the full size of the window, that promotes pedophilia or say \"Kill all f*gs\" or supports the KKK. Technically, it's inside the room he pays to rent. But people are going to associate those views with everyone in the house. People who know you live there will think you support his views. Would you really be happy for him to keep up a sign like that? Or would you stipulate as part of his rental agreement that that wasn't acceptable? Now imagine that you're trying to offer your front garden as a photoshoot location or similar - where advertisers can use the image of the front of your house and pay you for it. Do you think many of them would be interested in using a photo with a pro-pedophilia message in it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18653.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"466efe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"CMV: Facebook's \"new\" policy on deleting or \"shutting down\" racist, homophobic, or other derogatory comments is wrong and essentially an infringement upon an individual's right of identity and their freedom. Facebook has supposedly always held a standard for posting content, but apparently more recently they have promised to crack down on hateful posts and comments. Now, it isn't as if I'm afraid the content I post (or my character) will be comoronised, because I'd like to believe I'm a generally open minded individual. However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. Although in theory, greater restrictions on hate posts seem like a great idea, a few questions that come to mind are: Who will moderate what's right and what's wrong? Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity -- and aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime.","c_root_id_A":"d02wajr","c_root_id_B":"d02w7qm","created_at_utc_A":1455687119,"created_at_utc_B":1455686957,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> Isn't that giving the moderating team more power, and what if it becomes biased or corrupt somehow? Yes it is, and if it becomes \"biased\", you move somewhere else. What about their freedom as community owners (freedom of association) to set and enforce community standards? >However, I've always believed that social media is meant solely to express one's character, misguided as it may be. That's one view of social media. I think others see it as the purpose is to connect people and build communities or facilitate human interaction, ideally with a pro-social intent. Under that point of view, allowing hate speech is awfully counter-productive. >aren't they just trying to make everyone think identically and not allow a range of opinions? As I see it, removing something doesn't necessarily address the problem, it just hides it for the meantime. Ultimately, maybe they are. However, while it does not directly address the problems of underlying attitudes - but socialization is a powerful force, and it can at least address the problem of that speech 'infecting' the thought-processes of others. There are a *wide* variety of identities and views and opinions out there. Restricting toxic, socially corrosive ones simply does not reduce to \"making everyone think identically.\"","human_ref_B":"> I feel like shutting down these posts and comments will just restrict one's right of identity They are a private business, freedom of speech is not a protected right when it comes to private business' property. When you are posting and using Facebook you are using computers and networks that are owned by Facebook. Facebook can not infringe upon a right that you do not have.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":162.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"u09psl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Looks are just as important as personality when dating. (Maybe more?) I hear so many people saying that you should find a partner based off of their personality and not based off of looks. I've heard people say if you judge a person off of their looks when dating then you are going to end up hating your relationship. Could that happen? Yes and it could also happen if you judged a person off of personality. **To me** looks are a first impression, rather you want them to be or not (It is literally the first thing I see) When I date someone I want to enjoy looking at them. I have a type and even if they have the best personality in the world I most likely won't find an interest if they are not my type. When I take interest in someone because I like the way they look I still make sure they are a decent person. As far as what personality even means.. Being nice? Being funny? Liking the same things as me?? I can still date based off of looks and have the intelligence to not form a relationship if the person is mean\/rude to me or others. I can still like someone if they aren't funny. I do not care what they like to do or what they find interesting when I'm dating someone. Everyone I've dated in the past has had a fascination with anime and random fighting video games. I don't like anime or fighting games so does this mean I'm not meant to be with this person? To mean that makes no sense. Also I have never dated someone who completely enjoys everything that I find interesting and that has never caused an issue. I'm not looking for my boyfriend to be a carbon copy of me. Plus at the end of the day if you love your partner you can sometimes just do what they like to do not because you like it but because you want to make them happy. The only thing I care about in a man is: Is he attractive to me? Do I like him? Is he nice to me? Is he nice to himself? Is he financially stable to support himself? If the answer isn't yes to all of these questions then I'm not interested in being with them.","c_root_id_A":"i44hyiq","c_root_id_B":"i44k158","created_at_utc_A":1649564696,"created_at_utc_B":1649565874,"score_A":9,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"In the last part of your post only one out of five is about looks. If someone can\u2019t accept 4\/5ths of an ideal scenario that isn\u2019t someone I\u2019d want to date. Attraction is important but people are literally sexually attracted to poop. Attraction is more complicated than sexy or not.","human_ref_B":"An apt comparison I\u2019ve heard and found to be accurate: Looks are the resume, personality is the interview. So sure, looks will help land you the interview, but if you bomb the interview, you won\u2019t get the job. So if your goal is landing a long term relationship, personality is more important than looks. Looks might get you lots of interviews, but if you don\u2019t have a good interview (personality) nothing is going to stick.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1178.0,"score_ratio":3.1111111111} {"post_id":"u09psl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Looks are just as important as personality when dating. (Maybe more?) I hear so many people saying that you should find a partner based off of their personality and not based off of looks. I've heard people say if you judge a person off of their looks when dating then you are going to end up hating your relationship. Could that happen? Yes and it could also happen if you judged a person off of personality. **To me** looks are a first impression, rather you want them to be or not (It is literally the first thing I see) When I date someone I want to enjoy looking at them. I have a type and even if they have the best personality in the world I most likely won't find an interest if they are not my type. When I take interest in someone because I like the way they look I still make sure they are a decent person. As far as what personality even means.. Being nice? Being funny? Liking the same things as me?? I can still date based off of looks and have the intelligence to not form a relationship if the person is mean\/rude to me or others. I can still like someone if they aren't funny. I do not care what they like to do or what they find interesting when I'm dating someone. Everyone I've dated in the past has had a fascination with anime and random fighting video games. I don't like anime or fighting games so does this mean I'm not meant to be with this person? To mean that makes no sense. Also I have never dated someone who completely enjoys everything that I find interesting and that has never caused an issue. I'm not looking for my boyfriend to be a carbon copy of me. Plus at the end of the day if you love your partner you can sometimes just do what they like to do not because you like it but because you want to make them happy. The only thing I care about in a man is: Is he attractive to me? Do I like him? Is he nice to me? Is he nice to himself? Is he financially stable to support himself? If the answer isn't yes to all of these questions then I'm not interested in being with them.","c_root_id_A":"i44jsf2","c_root_id_B":"i44k158","created_at_utc_A":1649565737,"created_at_utc_B":1649565874,"score_A":2,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Looks may get you in the door, but if you want to stick around you need substance.","human_ref_B":"An apt comparison I\u2019ve heard and found to be accurate: Looks are the resume, personality is the interview. So sure, looks will help land you the interview, but if you bomb the interview, you won\u2019t get the job. So if your goal is landing a long term relationship, personality is more important than looks. Looks might get you lots of interviews, but if you don\u2019t have a good interview (personality) nothing is going to stick.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":137.0,"score_ratio":14.0} {"post_id":"u09psl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Looks are just as important as personality when dating. (Maybe more?) I hear so many people saying that you should find a partner based off of their personality and not based off of looks. I've heard people say if you judge a person off of their looks when dating then you are going to end up hating your relationship. Could that happen? Yes and it could also happen if you judged a person off of personality. **To me** looks are a first impression, rather you want them to be or not (It is literally the first thing I see) When I date someone I want to enjoy looking at them. I have a type and even if they have the best personality in the world I most likely won't find an interest if they are not my type. When I take interest in someone because I like the way they look I still make sure they are a decent person. As far as what personality even means.. Being nice? Being funny? Liking the same things as me?? I can still date based off of looks and have the intelligence to not form a relationship if the person is mean\/rude to me or others. I can still like someone if they aren't funny. I do not care what they like to do or what they find interesting when I'm dating someone. Everyone I've dated in the past has had a fascination with anime and random fighting video games. I don't like anime or fighting games so does this mean I'm not meant to be with this person? To mean that makes no sense. Also I have never dated someone who completely enjoys everything that I find interesting and that has never caused an issue. I'm not looking for my boyfriend to be a carbon copy of me. Plus at the end of the day if you love your partner you can sometimes just do what they like to do not because you like it but because you want to make them happy. The only thing I care about in a man is: Is he attractive to me? Do I like him? Is he nice to me? Is he nice to himself? Is he financially stable to support himself? If the answer isn't yes to all of these questions then I'm not interested in being with them.","c_root_id_A":"i45ucpe","c_root_id_B":"i44jsf2","created_at_utc_A":1649597817,"created_at_utc_B":1649565737,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Okay, so why does anyone choose to stay married to someone else after age 50, when the vast majority of people turn ugly as shit? Over 60% of divorces happen at ages 25-39 (source) , the age range where people are at their hottest, so why are MORE couples divorcing at that age? This statistic alone should tell you that looks are not equally as important as personality, because if they were, we'd expect at least half of those in a relationship to look at their uggo spouse and call it off based on that alone, and older people are the ones far more likely to be uggo. So clearly there's more going on here.","human_ref_B":"Looks may get you in the door, but if you want to stick around you need substance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32080.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"u09psl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Looks are just as important as personality when dating. (Maybe more?) I hear so many people saying that you should find a partner based off of their personality and not based off of looks. I've heard people say if you judge a person off of their looks when dating then you are going to end up hating your relationship. Could that happen? Yes and it could also happen if you judged a person off of personality. **To me** looks are a first impression, rather you want them to be or not (It is literally the first thing I see) When I date someone I want to enjoy looking at them. I have a type and even if they have the best personality in the world I most likely won't find an interest if they are not my type. When I take interest in someone because I like the way they look I still make sure they are a decent person. As far as what personality even means.. Being nice? Being funny? Liking the same things as me?? I can still date based off of looks and have the intelligence to not form a relationship if the person is mean\/rude to me or others. I can still like someone if they aren't funny. I do not care what they like to do or what they find interesting when I'm dating someone. Everyone I've dated in the past has had a fascination with anime and random fighting video games. I don't like anime or fighting games so does this mean I'm not meant to be with this person? To mean that makes no sense. Also I have never dated someone who completely enjoys everything that I find interesting and that has never caused an issue. I'm not looking for my boyfriend to be a carbon copy of me. Plus at the end of the day if you love your partner you can sometimes just do what they like to do not because you like it but because you want to make them happy. The only thing I care about in a man is: Is he attractive to me? Do I like him? Is he nice to me? Is he nice to himself? Is he financially stable to support himself? If the answer isn't yes to all of these questions then I'm not interested in being with them.","c_root_id_A":"i45ucpe","c_root_id_B":"i44k5pg","created_at_utc_A":1649597817,"created_at_utc_B":1649565948,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Okay, so why does anyone choose to stay married to someone else after age 50, when the vast majority of people turn ugly as shit? Over 60% of divorces happen at ages 25-39 (source) , the age range where people are at their hottest, so why are MORE couples divorcing at that age? This statistic alone should tell you that looks are not equally as important as personality, because if they were, we'd expect at least half of those in a relationship to look at their uggo spouse and call it off based on that alone, and older people are the ones far more likely to be uggo. So clearly there's more going on here.","human_ref_B":"Well, looks fade. A person's personality usually remains the same throughout life. So, no, in the long run you should marry for personality rather than looks. Although, of course, you should still find sufficient attraction in the person.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31869.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"u09psl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Looks are just as important as personality when dating. (Maybe more?) I hear so many people saying that you should find a partner based off of their personality and not based off of looks. I've heard people say if you judge a person off of their looks when dating then you are going to end up hating your relationship. Could that happen? Yes and it could also happen if you judged a person off of personality. **To me** looks are a first impression, rather you want them to be or not (It is literally the first thing I see) When I date someone I want to enjoy looking at them. I have a type and even if they have the best personality in the world I most likely won't find an interest if they are not my type. When I take interest in someone because I like the way they look I still make sure they are a decent person. As far as what personality even means.. Being nice? Being funny? Liking the same things as me?? I can still date based off of looks and have the intelligence to not form a relationship if the person is mean\/rude to me or others. I can still like someone if they aren't funny. I do not care what they like to do or what they find interesting when I'm dating someone. Everyone I've dated in the past has had a fascination with anime and random fighting video games. I don't like anime or fighting games so does this mean I'm not meant to be with this person? To mean that makes no sense. Also I have never dated someone who completely enjoys everything that I find interesting and that has never caused an issue. I'm not looking for my boyfriend to be a carbon copy of me. Plus at the end of the day if you love your partner you can sometimes just do what they like to do not because you like it but because you want to make them happy. The only thing I care about in a man is: Is he attractive to me? Do I like him? Is he nice to me? Is he nice to himself? Is he financially stable to support himself? If the answer isn't yes to all of these questions then I'm not interested in being with them.","c_root_id_A":"i45ucpe","c_root_id_B":"i45dm3x","created_at_utc_A":1649597817,"created_at_utc_B":1649587152,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Okay, so why does anyone choose to stay married to someone else after age 50, when the vast majority of people turn ugly as shit? Over 60% of divorces happen at ages 25-39 (source) , the age range where people are at their hottest, so why are MORE couples divorcing at that age? This statistic alone should tell you that looks are not equally as important as personality, because if they were, we'd expect at least half of those in a relationship to look at their uggo spouse and call it off based on that alone, and older people are the ones far more likely to be uggo. So clearly there's more going on here.","human_ref_B":"This may be true for you - and if that\u2019s true it\u2019s valid for you. For me, I\u2019m demisexual; looks are not even a factor for me. Everyone is different.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10665.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"u09psl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Looks are just as important as personality when dating. (Maybe more?) I hear so many people saying that you should find a partner based off of their personality and not based off of looks. I've heard people say if you judge a person off of their looks when dating then you are going to end up hating your relationship. Could that happen? Yes and it could also happen if you judged a person off of personality. **To me** looks are a first impression, rather you want them to be or not (It is literally the first thing I see) When I date someone I want to enjoy looking at them. I have a type and even if they have the best personality in the world I most likely won't find an interest if they are not my type. When I take interest in someone because I like the way they look I still make sure they are a decent person. As far as what personality even means.. Being nice? Being funny? Liking the same things as me?? I can still date based off of looks and have the intelligence to not form a relationship if the person is mean\/rude to me or others. I can still like someone if they aren't funny. I do not care what they like to do or what they find interesting when I'm dating someone. Everyone I've dated in the past has had a fascination with anime and random fighting video games. I don't like anime or fighting games so does this mean I'm not meant to be with this person? To mean that makes no sense. Also I have never dated someone who completely enjoys everything that I find interesting and that has never caused an issue. I'm not looking for my boyfriend to be a carbon copy of me. Plus at the end of the day if you love your partner you can sometimes just do what they like to do not because you like it but because you want to make them happy. The only thing I care about in a man is: Is he attractive to me? Do I like him? Is he nice to me? Is he nice to himself? Is he financially stable to support himself? If the answer isn't yes to all of these questions then I'm not interested in being with them.","c_root_id_A":"i45ucpe","c_root_id_B":"i45u03a","created_at_utc_A":1649597817,"created_at_utc_B":1649597640,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Okay, so why does anyone choose to stay married to someone else after age 50, when the vast majority of people turn ugly as shit? Over 60% of divorces happen at ages 25-39 (source) , the age range where people are at their hottest, so why are MORE couples divorcing at that age? This statistic alone should tell you that looks are not equally as important as personality, because if they were, we'd expect at least half of those in a relationship to look at their uggo spouse and call it off based on that alone, and older people are the ones far more likely to be uggo. So clearly there's more going on here.","human_ref_B":"I think looks or i would say attraction definitely helps you out to sort out few people from crowd But relationship will only sustain if you two are compatible and for being compatible you don't have to be identical","labels":1,"seconds_difference":177.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"u09psl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Looks are just as important as personality when dating. (Maybe more?) I hear so many people saying that you should find a partner based off of their personality and not based off of looks. I've heard people say if you judge a person off of their looks when dating then you are going to end up hating your relationship. Could that happen? Yes and it could also happen if you judged a person off of personality. **To me** looks are a first impression, rather you want them to be or not (It is literally the first thing I see) When I date someone I want to enjoy looking at them. I have a type and even if they have the best personality in the world I most likely won't find an interest if they are not my type. When I take interest in someone because I like the way they look I still make sure they are a decent person. As far as what personality even means.. Being nice? Being funny? Liking the same things as me?? I can still date based off of looks and have the intelligence to not form a relationship if the person is mean\/rude to me or others. I can still like someone if they aren't funny. I do not care what they like to do or what they find interesting when I'm dating someone. Everyone I've dated in the past has had a fascination with anime and random fighting video games. I don't like anime or fighting games so does this mean I'm not meant to be with this person? To mean that makes no sense. Also I have never dated someone who completely enjoys everything that I find interesting and that has never caused an issue. I'm not looking for my boyfriend to be a carbon copy of me. Plus at the end of the day if you love your partner you can sometimes just do what they like to do not because you like it but because you want to make them happy. The only thing I care about in a man is: Is he attractive to me? Do I like him? Is he nice to me? Is he nice to himself? Is he financially stable to support himself? If the answer isn't yes to all of these questions then I'm not interested in being with them.","c_root_id_A":"i44n5xi","c_root_id_B":"i44jsf2","created_at_utc_A":1649567580,"created_at_utc_B":1649565737,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"you are preferably dating with the purpose of spending your life together which means they will age, gain weight, go through pregnancy, possibly get into an accident, diseases. their looks wont remain the same forever. what then? you divorce them because they get cancer?","human_ref_B":"Looks may get you in the door, but if you want to stick around you need substance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1843.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"u09psl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: Looks are just as important as personality when dating. (Maybe more?) I hear so many people saying that you should find a partner based off of their personality and not based off of looks. I've heard people say if you judge a person off of their looks when dating then you are going to end up hating your relationship. Could that happen? Yes and it could also happen if you judged a person off of personality. **To me** looks are a first impression, rather you want them to be or not (It is literally the first thing I see) When I date someone I want to enjoy looking at them. I have a type and even if they have the best personality in the world I most likely won't find an interest if they are not my type. When I take interest in someone because I like the way they look I still make sure they are a decent person. As far as what personality even means.. Being nice? Being funny? Liking the same things as me?? I can still date based off of looks and have the intelligence to not form a relationship if the person is mean\/rude to me or others. I can still like someone if they aren't funny. I do not care what they like to do or what they find interesting when I'm dating someone. Everyone I've dated in the past has had a fascination with anime and random fighting video games. I don't like anime or fighting games so does this mean I'm not meant to be with this person? To mean that makes no sense. Also I have never dated someone who completely enjoys everything that I find interesting and that has never caused an issue. I'm not looking for my boyfriend to be a carbon copy of me. Plus at the end of the day if you love your partner you can sometimes just do what they like to do not because you like it but because you want to make them happy. The only thing I care about in a man is: Is he attractive to me? Do I like him? Is he nice to me? Is he nice to himself? Is he financially stable to support himself? If the answer isn't yes to all of these questions then I'm not interested in being with them.","c_root_id_A":"i44k5pg","c_root_id_B":"i44n5xi","created_at_utc_A":1649565948,"created_at_utc_B":1649567580,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Well, looks fade. A person's personality usually remains the same throughout life. So, no, in the long run you should marry for personality rather than looks. Although, of course, you should still find sufficient attraction in the person.","human_ref_B":"you are preferably dating with the purpose of spending your life together which means they will age, gain weight, go through pregnancy, possibly get into an accident, diseases. their looks wont remain the same forever. what then? you divorce them because they get cancer?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1632.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"7i26bj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Trump\u2019s move to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is a good strategic play,and represents a movement toward a sensible mid-east policy. Trump\u2019s decision recognizes the reality of current situation of Israeli control and dominance. To pretend that the Palestinians can credibly contest the Holy City is useless and counterproductive, preserving peace only in the short term. Trump\u2019s decision also helps heal the strained relationship between the Israeli Prime Minister and the White House that existed after Obama\u2019s term. I believe that a positive the US relationship with Israel is desirable and good, as Israel is a western-style wealthy democracy, and practices Western values of religious, ethnic, and sexual tolerance, as opposed to the current Palestinian political authorities. I believe that the US should prioritize a positive relationship with Israel over one with either the West Bank or Gaza, and that Trump\u2019s decision is a great step in that direction, and away from the failed \u201ctwo-state\u201d solutions that have sought peace in vain. I want my view changed (or at least challenged) because I feel I don\u2019t fully understand the argument for a US policy favoring Palestine, and do have an admittedly pro-Israeli bias. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"dqvkpiu","c_root_id_B":"dqvjxx2","created_at_utc_A":1512604842,"created_at_utc_B":1512603968,"score_A":15,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The thing is, that a favorable view of the US in Israel is pretty much a given. Netanyahu didn't like Obama, but that didn't stop any business, military collaboration, tourism, cultural exchange, or affect anything other than petty speeches the PM made in front of international audiences. Israel is more or less a Western country, definitely much more so than its neighbors, and for that reason it's internationally held to Western standards, which exclude the current situation with the West Bank and Gaza as immoral and counterproductive. The legitimization of Jerusalem as the capital, even though purely symbolic as it's been the de-facto capital for a long time, undermines international pressures that aim to embrace Israel into the West, and has no tangible benefits other than perhaps a small gain in approval for Trump from American Jews.","human_ref_B":"> I believe that a positive the US relationship with Israel is desirable and good, as Israel is a western-style wealthy democracy, and practices Western values of religious, ethnic, and sexual tolerance, as opposed to the current Palestinian political authorities. Other people will get into the nitty-gritty, but I think this quote represents the problem with your view. It's very dangerous and short-sighted to look at two nations and say \"Nation A is good! Nation B is bad!\" It's not inherently WRONG to think that, necessarily, but it's the kind of thought that wipes away nuance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":874.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"7i26bj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Trump\u2019s move to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is a good strategic play,and represents a movement toward a sensible mid-east policy. Trump\u2019s decision recognizes the reality of current situation of Israeli control and dominance. To pretend that the Palestinians can credibly contest the Holy City is useless and counterproductive, preserving peace only in the short term. Trump\u2019s decision also helps heal the strained relationship between the Israeli Prime Minister and the White House that existed after Obama\u2019s term. I believe that a positive the US relationship with Israel is desirable and good, as Israel is a western-style wealthy democracy, and practices Western values of religious, ethnic, and sexual tolerance, as opposed to the current Palestinian political authorities. I believe that the US should prioritize a positive relationship with Israel over one with either the West Bank or Gaza, and that Trump\u2019s decision is a great step in that direction, and away from the failed \u201ctwo-state\u201d solutions that have sought peace in vain. I want my view changed (or at least challenged) because I feel I don\u2019t fully understand the argument for a US policy favoring Palestine, and do have an admittedly pro-Israeli bias. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"dqvq363","c_root_id_B":"dqvjxx2","created_at_utc_A":1512611404,"created_at_utc_B":1512603968,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> To pretend that the Palestinians can credibly contest the Holy City is useless and counterproductive you're missing the point. Nobody thinks that the palestinians have enough authority to claim they control jerusalem. That's obviously not the case. In fact, that is kind of the point that detractors of the president's policy are trying to make. the palestinians have basically no power. Israel builds tons of checkpoints to limit movement, kills and imprisons many innocent people, builds massive, oppressive walls, bulldozes houses, and so on. Also, east jerusalem is very much contested, and is a location where a lot of illegal settlements are being created. For the US to recognize jerusalem as the israeli capital doesn't necessarily sanction these settlements, but I think there's an implication that the US does support them, which is something that pisses off a lot of liberals. So, it's not just a question of whether we recognize \"Israeli control and dominance\", it's whether we endorse it. Anyway, when you say this will repair the strain that we saw under Obama, you are not looking at the big picture. Netanyahu is super right wing, and so is Trump. Netanyahu is not the unanimous voice of Israelis in the same way that Trump is not (quite the opposite, in face, looking at his approval rating). So if there was tension when Obama was president, that's a good thing. Obama was basically representing the same perspective as the international community at large. Rememeber that the UN has condemned Israel's illegal settlements on many occasions. > I believe that the US should prioritize a positive relationship with Israel over one with either the West Bank or Gaza, and that Trump\u2019s decision is a great step in that direction, and away from the failed \u201ctwo-state\u201d solutions that have sought peace in vain. Ok, what is the actual alternative you're proposing here? Do you realize the whole reason people are concerned about the palestinians is because their situation is really shitty? Terrible economy, lots of poverty, and it's not just their fault. Israel is to blame for a large part of it. You should really do some reading about the plight of the palestinians. By the way I am jewish, just keep in mind that not all jews are right-wing, not even close.","human_ref_B":"> I believe that a positive the US relationship with Israel is desirable and good, as Israel is a western-style wealthy democracy, and practices Western values of religious, ethnic, and sexual tolerance, as opposed to the current Palestinian political authorities. Other people will get into the nitty-gritty, but I think this quote represents the problem with your view. It's very dangerous and short-sighted to look at two nations and say \"Nation A is good! Nation B is bad!\" It's not inherently WRONG to think that, necessarily, but it's the kind of thought that wipes away nuance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7436.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"7i26bj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Trump\u2019s move to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is a good strategic play,and represents a movement toward a sensible mid-east policy. Trump\u2019s decision recognizes the reality of current situation of Israeli control and dominance. To pretend that the Palestinians can credibly contest the Holy City is useless and counterproductive, preserving peace only in the short term. Trump\u2019s decision also helps heal the strained relationship between the Israeli Prime Minister and the White House that existed after Obama\u2019s term. I believe that a positive the US relationship with Israel is desirable and good, as Israel is a western-style wealthy democracy, and practices Western values of religious, ethnic, and sexual tolerance, as opposed to the current Palestinian political authorities. I believe that the US should prioritize a positive relationship with Israel over one with either the West Bank or Gaza, and that Trump\u2019s decision is a great step in that direction, and away from the failed \u201ctwo-state\u201d solutions that have sought peace in vain. I want my view changed (or at least challenged) because I feel I don\u2019t fully understand the argument for a US policy favoring Palestine, and do have an admittedly pro-Israeli bias. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"dqvmg7h","c_root_id_B":"dqvq363","created_at_utc_A":1512606978,"created_at_utc_B":1512611404,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Honestly no. Like there is a reason that no president has done this. Its a bad idea. The US favors a two state solution, and this honestly fucks that up. Its not completely a matter of being pro israel or pro palestine its a matter of the geopolitical rivalries and the fact that keeping Jerusalem to some degree neutral territory keeps the door to negotiation between both sides open. This just shut the door to the point that the US won't have a seat at the table, and no other middle eastern countries will take the side of Israel. Basically by doing that Trump just took away the ability for the countries in the middle east to talk to each other.","human_ref_B":"> To pretend that the Palestinians can credibly contest the Holy City is useless and counterproductive you're missing the point. Nobody thinks that the palestinians have enough authority to claim they control jerusalem. That's obviously not the case. In fact, that is kind of the point that detractors of the president's policy are trying to make. the palestinians have basically no power. Israel builds tons of checkpoints to limit movement, kills and imprisons many innocent people, builds massive, oppressive walls, bulldozes houses, and so on. Also, east jerusalem is very much contested, and is a location where a lot of illegal settlements are being created. For the US to recognize jerusalem as the israeli capital doesn't necessarily sanction these settlements, but I think there's an implication that the US does support them, which is something that pisses off a lot of liberals. So, it's not just a question of whether we recognize \"Israeli control and dominance\", it's whether we endorse it. Anyway, when you say this will repair the strain that we saw under Obama, you are not looking at the big picture. Netanyahu is super right wing, and so is Trump. Netanyahu is not the unanimous voice of Israelis in the same way that Trump is not (quite the opposite, in face, looking at his approval rating). So if there was tension when Obama was president, that's a good thing. Obama was basically representing the same perspective as the international community at large. Rememeber that the UN has condemned Israel's illegal settlements on many occasions. > I believe that the US should prioritize a positive relationship with Israel over one with either the West Bank or Gaza, and that Trump\u2019s decision is a great step in that direction, and away from the failed \u201ctwo-state\u201d solutions that have sought peace in vain. Ok, what is the actual alternative you're proposing here? Do you realize the whole reason people are concerned about the palestinians is because their situation is really shitty? Terrible economy, lots of poverty, and it's not just their fault. Israel is to blame for a large part of it. You should really do some reading about the plight of the palestinians. By the way I am jewish, just keep in mind that not all jews are right-wing, not even close.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4426.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"7i26bj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Trump\u2019s move to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is a good strategic play,and represents a movement toward a sensible mid-east policy. Trump\u2019s decision recognizes the reality of current situation of Israeli control and dominance. To pretend that the Palestinians can credibly contest the Holy City is useless and counterproductive, preserving peace only in the short term. Trump\u2019s decision also helps heal the strained relationship between the Israeli Prime Minister and the White House that existed after Obama\u2019s term. I believe that a positive the US relationship with Israel is desirable and good, as Israel is a western-style wealthy democracy, and practices Western values of religious, ethnic, and sexual tolerance, as opposed to the current Palestinian political authorities. I believe that the US should prioritize a positive relationship with Israel over one with either the West Bank or Gaza, and that Trump\u2019s decision is a great step in that direction, and away from the failed \u201ctwo-state\u201d solutions that have sought peace in vain. I want my view changed (or at least challenged) because I feel I don\u2019t fully understand the argument for a US policy favoring Palestine, and do have an admittedly pro-Israeli bias. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"dqvou8g","c_root_id_B":"dqvq363","created_at_utc_A":1512609940,"created_at_utc_B":1512611404,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"If two sides are fighting (or are in a frozen conflict) you don't encourage the side who's winning\/stronger to come to the negotiation table by rewarding their aggression. Why not occupy more? What's the incentive for Israel to give up anything? You also remove a negotiation tool for absolutely no gain, US doesn't need better image in Israel. Israel doesn't need to feel more powerful and more protected by US, Palestinians don't need to feel more hopeless.","human_ref_B":"> To pretend that the Palestinians can credibly contest the Holy City is useless and counterproductive you're missing the point. Nobody thinks that the palestinians have enough authority to claim they control jerusalem. That's obviously not the case. In fact, that is kind of the point that detractors of the president's policy are trying to make. the palestinians have basically no power. Israel builds tons of checkpoints to limit movement, kills and imprisons many innocent people, builds massive, oppressive walls, bulldozes houses, and so on. Also, east jerusalem is very much contested, and is a location where a lot of illegal settlements are being created. For the US to recognize jerusalem as the israeli capital doesn't necessarily sanction these settlements, but I think there's an implication that the US does support them, which is something that pisses off a lot of liberals. So, it's not just a question of whether we recognize \"Israeli control and dominance\", it's whether we endorse it. Anyway, when you say this will repair the strain that we saw under Obama, you are not looking at the big picture. Netanyahu is super right wing, and so is Trump. Netanyahu is not the unanimous voice of Israelis in the same way that Trump is not (quite the opposite, in face, looking at his approval rating). So if there was tension when Obama was president, that's a good thing. Obama was basically representing the same perspective as the international community at large. Rememeber that the UN has condemned Israel's illegal settlements on many occasions. > I believe that the US should prioritize a positive relationship with Israel over one with either the West Bank or Gaza, and that Trump\u2019s decision is a great step in that direction, and away from the failed \u201ctwo-state\u201d solutions that have sought peace in vain. Ok, what is the actual alternative you're proposing here? Do you realize the whole reason people are concerned about the palestinians is because their situation is really shitty? Terrible economy, lots of poverty, and it's not just their fault. Israel is to blame for a large part of it. You should really do some reading about the plight of the palestinians. By the way I am jewish, just keep in mind that not all jews are right-wing, not even close.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1464.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"7i26bj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Trump\u2019s move to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is a good strategic play,and represents a movement toward a sensible mid-east policy. Trump\u2019s decision recognizes the reality of current situation of Israeli control and dominance. To pretend that the Palestinians can credibly contest the Holy City is useless and counterproductive, preserving peace only in the short term. Trump\u2019s decision also helps heal the strained relationship between the Israeli Prime Minister and the White House that existed after Obama\u2019s term. I believe that a positive the US relationship with Israel is desirable and good, as Israel is a western-style wealthy democracy, and practices Western values of religious, ethnic, and sexual tolerance, as opposed to the current Palestinian political authorities. I believe that the US should prioritize a positive relationship with Israel over one with either the West Bank or Gaza, and that Trump\u2019s decision is a great step in that direction, and away from the failed \u201ctwo-state\u201d solutions that have sought peace in vain. I want my view changed (or at least challenged) because I feel I don\u2019t fully understand the argument for a US policy favoring Palestine, and do have an admittedly pro-Israeli bias. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"dqvni3r","c_root_id_B":"dqvjxx2","created_at_utc_A":1512608358,"created_at_utc_B":1512603968,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"This does nothing good. It makes Israel like us more: They already like us. We already support them. So nothing really will change. This will make the Arab nations dislike us more. And how will that help us? How will that make our relations better? It won't.","human_ref_B":"> I believe that a positive the US relationship with Israel is desirable and good, as Israel is a western-style wealthy democracy, and practices Western values of religious, ethnic, and sexual tolerance, as opposed to the current Palestinian political authorities. Other people will get into the nitty-gritty, but I think this quote represents the problem with your view. It's very dangerous and short-sighted to look at two nations and say \"Nation A is good! Nation B is bad!\" It's not inherently WRONG to think that, necessarily, but it's the kind of thought that wipes away nuance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4390.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"7i26bj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Trump\u2019s move to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is a good strategic play,and represents a movement toward a sensible mid-east policy. Trump\u2019s decision recognizes the reality of current situation of Israeli control and dominance. To pretend that the Palestinians can credibly contest the Holy City is useless and counterproductive, preserving peace only in the short term. Trump\u2019s decision also helps heal the strained relationship between the Israeli Prime Minister and the White House that existed after Obama\u2019s term. I believe that a positive the US relationship with Israel is desirable and good, as Israel is a western-style wealthy democracy, and practices Western values of religious, ethnic, and sexual tolerance, as opposed to the current Palestinian political authorities. I believe that the US should prioritize a positive relationship with Israel over one with either the West Bank or Gaza, and that Trump\u2019s decision is a great step in that direction, and away from the failed \u201ctwo-state\u201d solutions that have sought peace in vain. I want my view changed (or at least challenged) because I feel I don\u2019t fully understand the argument for a US policy favoring Palestine, and do have an admittedly pro-Israeli bias. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"dqvmg7h","c_root_id_B":"dqvni3r","created_at_utc_A":1512606978,"created_at_utc_B":1512608358,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Honestly no. Like there is a reason that no president has done this. Its a bad idea. The US favors a two state solution, and this honestly fucks that up. Its not completely a matter of being pro israel or pro palestine its a matter of the geopolitical rivalries and the fact that keeping Jerusalem to some degree neutral territory keeps the door to negotiation between both sides open. This just shut the door to the point that the US won't have a seat at the table, and no other middle eastern countries will take the side of Israel. Basically by doing that Trump just took away the ability for the countries in the middle east to talk to each other.","human_ref_B":"This does nothing good. It makes Israel like us more: They already like us. We already support them. So nothing really will change. This will make the Arab nations dislike us more. And how will that help us? How will that make our relations better? It won't.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1380.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"7i26bj","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Trump\u2019s move to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is a good strategic play,and represents a movement toward a sensible mid-east policy. Trump\u2019s decision recognizes the reality of current situation of Israeli control and dominance. To pretend that the Palestinians can credibly contest the Holy City is useless and counterproductive, preserving peace only in the short term. Trump\u2019s decision also helps heal the strained relationship between the Israeli Prime Minister and the White House that existed after Obama\u2019s term. I believe that a positive the US relationship with Israel is desirable and good, as Israel is a western-style wealthy democracy, and practices Western values of religious, ethnic, and sexual tolerance, as opposed to the current Palestinian political authorities. I believe that the US should prioritize a positive relationship with Israel over one with either the West Bank or Gaza, and that Trump\u2019s decision is a great step in that direction, and away from the failed \u201ctwo-state\u201d solutions that have sought peace in vain. I want my view changed (or at least challenged) because I feel I don\u2019t fully understand the argument for a US policy favoring Palestine, and do have an admittedly pro-Israeli bias. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"dqvou8g","c_root_id_B":"dqw1rkj","created_at_utc_A":1512609940,"created_at_utc_B":1512626654,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If two sides are fighting (or are in a frozen conflict) you don't encourage the side who's winning\/stronger to come to the negotiation table by rewarding their aggression. Why not occupy more? What's the incentive for Israel to give up anything? You also remove a negotiation tool for absolutely no gain, US doesn't need better image in Israel. Israel doesn't need to feel more powerful and more protected by US, Palestinians don't need to feel more hopeless.","human_ref_B":"Hey OP -- what a great post!! Thank you for discussing this issue in a fair-minded and open manner... Our political divide is so intense right now that it is almost impossible for anyone to see the actions of the Trump administration as nothing other than disastrous or virtuous. You are right to point out that Israel is a much better relative of the US to have at the proverbial thanksgiving table than Palestine. Further, the government and popular culture of Israel practices most of the sacred values that we practice (e.g. democracy, investment in science and technology, egalitarianism, regulated capitalism, civil rights, etc...) whereas Palestine does not. A great place to start is with the modern, post-world war II history of the region. I cannot even begin to it justice, so I encourage you to read and study as much as you can... especially by reading the many conflicting viewpoints of historians on the matter! For our discussion, it's perhaps most helpful to invoke alternative and hypothetical histories with the US (I'm assuming you live the US.) Imagine going back to about 5 years before the Civil War in the US when tensions were at an all time high between the North and the South, and the border of the US was the Mississippi River. You are in the North and are a part of the budding mercantile economy and you abhor Slavery. Now, imagine that as war is breaking out, the surviving members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations (who were forcefully displaced from Appalachia and the Southern states along \"the trail of tears\") raised an army of millions of Native Americans west of the Mississippi and were equipped with billions of dollars worth of the finest weapons of war curtesy of England, Canada, Mexico, France, Spain, Prussia, Austro-Hungary, and Japan (all of whom were not cool with the US at this time.) This army invades the North, beets the shit out of it, the confederacy becomes an independent country, and millions of displaced \"Natives\" repopulate everything from New York City to Boston to Washington D.C. The White House, Capital Hill, the Supreme Court are all burned to the ground, and replaced with sweat lodges where the High Exaulted Shamans all meet to divine policy and law through sweat-induced hallucination and affirmation that their Gods are supreme rulers of the planet. Meanwhile Europe, Mexico, and Canada, all pour money and resources to keep this new nation of Native Americans permanently in power. While not completely accurate to the Great European Jewish Exodus of the 1950s, this alternative history nevertheless elucidates how most Palestinians (and the Arab world at large) feel about the UN and the foundation of the state of Israel. So in spite of all of the insane complexities of the political situation, the main tension is quite simple: the Native Palestinians either have an independent state or they don't. Regardless of if they do or not, the extreme political tensions between the Israelis and the Palestinians will not go away. So, what can be done to build a future of relative peace that subdues the bloodshed and human displacement?? Both nations want what any nation wants: sufficient autonomy to determine their own destiny. Palestine cannot achieve this autonomy because Israel's military strength is so superior that legal armed conflict would result in irradiation of the Palestinian state. Therefore, rogue (but often inferentially state sanctioned) actors bomb Isreali civilians or otherwise commit acts of terror as a means of reenforcing the idea of an impenetrable border (read: unless you bend to the wills of our state, we will continue to make your life hell). Whereas, Israel is in an entirely different predicament: their unchallengeable power is entirely predicated on international support from Europe and the United States. They are not in control of their own destiny, and want the freedom to act (militarily speaking) in accordance with their own conscious. It is no coincidence that the government of Israel spends significant capital and resources in lobbying Evangelical Christian political power figures in the US (who believe Israel's struggle against Islamic Palestine as a biblical prophecy related to the battle of Armageddon). The international community unanimously agrees that the first step in establishing peace between these two nations is first, the de-escalation of violence in zones that are hotbeds of religious and cultural conflict -- Jerusalem being hot spot number one. Tel Aviv has long been the cultural epicenter of the modern nation of Israel -- it is a city chocked full of internationally renowned Universities (e.g. Weissman Institute), high-tech start up companies (e.g. MobileEye) and Western Style democracy power players. Jerusalem is an old world town, religious pilgrimage site (for Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike) and relies almost entirely on a tourist economy. For decades, Jerusalem has been a target site by the international community for peace work. If Jerusalem becomes peaceful, the rest of the region can follow suit as both countries have their respective foci of identity outside it's city walls. The most successful peace treaty to date was the camp david accords, which set in motion the process by which Israel would shift more of it's political operation to Tel Aviv, and Palestine to regions outside of Jerusalem. In short, this is what the international community has been pressuring both factions to focus on as step one for a broader peace: let Jerusalem be an international tourist town (and thus politically neutral) and the centers of stability for both groups can grow outside these city walls. So, the Trump administration's decision to increase US diplomatic pressure in Jerusalem, and ultimately Israel government power in the city, presents two major pitfalls for the peace process: 1. It emboldens hardline Zionist movements within the Israeli government that seek power (and authority) to crush the Palestinian state with impunity. If the Israeli government and military were to completely wipe out the Palestinian government and people (or otherwise destabilize them beyond repair), things would end well for Israel and regional peace may very well be achieved. However, this outcome is unlikely because of the increasing monetary and military support that the Arab world is pouring into Palestine, as well as Israel's economic reliance on the US and Europe to ensure it's power in the region. The most likely outcome of the Zionists taking full control and waging a war of expulsion on the nation of Palestine is a proxy war fought in the region between global superpowers... if history is any lesson, this can only end badly for the people who live there. 2. The Trump administration is internationally understood to be a temporary policy maker for the US. Because of the ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI, and the exorbitant unpopularity of the Trump administration, any foreign policy enacted by Trump does not carry substantial weight for all those opposed to it; those who do support such action, will do everything they can to insist on its longevity. In other words, Trump's decisions to aggressively expand US diplomatic presence in Jerusalem against the policy and practices of NATO, the EU, and especially OPEC, will be thought of by Zionists as long-standing US policy and dismissed of as 'noise' by EU traditionalists and the Arab Oil producing countries in OPEC. Ultimately, the Trump administration's decision to make major moves in the region is foolish. They do not have enough palpable evidence that their policies will hold any permanence, and yet they pressed them as if they did. Thus, with their move to formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel fervently emboldened both America's most important ally in the region (Israel), and America's biggest headache (the Palestine government under legitimate Islamist rule) with near equal magnitude. That can only lead to further conflict. (Edits: grammar; deleted scratch notes that accidentally made their way to the post.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16714.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"khg04c","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: While Gatekeeping is dumb and rude, so is saying you like something when you know little to nothing about it. Nobody likes a gatekeeper, right? People can like whatever they want, with whatever level of involvement they choose. It's stupid to tell someone they \"aren't allowed\" to like something because they don't know much about it. However, I also think that it is stupid, and rude, to say that you really like something when you don't know much about it. I'm picking on a very specific kind of person here so I'll give a detailed example. Let's say you're a huge Pink Floyd fan. You go out and happen to meet someone with a Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon(of course), shirt on, you say, \"hey, cool shirt, I like Pink Floyd too!\" They reply, \"thanks, they're my favorite band! I really love all their songs.\" Awesome what a cool person you just met, and they seem well versed, so you inquire further, \"what's your favorite song? Mine is Time.\" They look a little confused, \"I haven't heard that one, I really like the one about school.\" Oh no, you think to yourself, I've been duped, \"you haven't heard Time? But you're wearing- Uh, so you like The Wall then?\" Again, they're confused, \"the wall? what- I like the one where they go 'WE DONT NEED NO-'\" You cut them off, \"yeah, I, uh know the song. I thought you said they were your favorite band?\" He's immediately offended, \"Oh just cause I don't know every song they can't be my favorite?\" You defend yourself, \"**no I just thought you would know more**.\" And that is my point. It is unfair and dishonest to the person you are speaking to for you to claim you love\/favorite\/whatever something that you know little to nothing about. My proposed solution is just for people to be honest. If you like something but don't know much about it, then say that. Some clarifiers: If someone knows a lot about the music a band makes\/made, ie their songs and albums, but nothing about the band members, they are exempt from my ire. Same goes for films and whatever else people gatekeep in a similar way. Esoteric knowledge is irrelevant, unless I guess its also the main topic. I'd also clarify that I am not putting the blame on any individual here, rather I think that it is our toxic society's fault that people feel the need to lie about mundane things in such ways. Similarly, it is not dishonest because you don't *actually* love Pink Floyd or w\/e, it's dishonest because when you say you love something, at least in American society, that usually denotes a deeper understanding\/familiarization of\/with it.","c_root_id_A":"ggkvlen","c_root_id_B":"ggkws6o","created_at_utc_A":1608552647,"created_at_utc_B":1608553726,"score_A":5,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"It's not really clear what part you are open for CMV? I'm also not sure anyone would really disagree with you. We all have seen dickish gatekeeper types and we have all seen \" I love Marvel Stuff, see my Superman shirt\" and both can be an embarrassment to the human species.","human_ref_B":"People enjoy things in different ways, especially in an era where media is so easily accessible, so it\u2019s not fair to assume they are \u201clying\u201d because they don\u2019t enjoy something in the same way you do. Take music. For example, I really enjoy jazz. I like Miles Davis. I know fuck all about album or song names, who he played with, the progression of his career. Etc. I\u2019m vaguely aware those things are important to some people. Mostly I just like putting on the \u201cMiles Davis radio\u201d Spotify mix while I\u2019m working around the house. I also own a cool vintage style jazz festival shirt that my wife got me. Now, if someone saw me wearing the shirt and asked me about it, I\u2019d probably say I like jazz. If you then started quizzing me about anything beyond the fact that Miles Davis plays trumpet and then cut me off to question whether I\u2019m \u201creally\u201d a jazz fan, I would think you were kind of a dick and probably start to get a bit defensive. Am I \u201clying\u201d that I like jazz, or am I just enjoying it in a different way than you? I like having the music on in the background my life, and I like the cool shirt my wife got me. Good for you that you appreciate more aspects of that, but what you enjoy has nothing to do with how I enjoy it. In your hypothetical example, you didn\u2019t even give the person an opportunity to tell you how they enjoy the music. You just assumed that them saying \u201cI like all the songs\u201d should mean that they know anything more than what one would learn by just typing \u201cpink Floyd\u201d into a Spotify search bar. You actually missed an opportunity to find a way to bond over a shared interest because you still focused on the differences between how you enjoy things and judged your way to be superior. What could have been an opportunity to introduce them to a new way of enjoying something, or even just sharing a moment of shared connection with someone that never had to last longer than that conversation, devolved into defensiveness and hurt feelings.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1079.0,"score_ratio":5.2} {"post_id":"khg04c","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: While Gatekeeping is dumb and rude, so is saying you like something when you know little to nothing about it. Nobody likes a gatekeeper, right? People can like whatever they want, with whatever level of involvement they choose. It's stupid to tell someone they \"aren't allowed\" to like something because they don't know much about it. However, I also think that it is stupid, and rude, to say that you really like something when you don't know much about it. I'm picking on a very specific kind of person here so I'll give a detailed example. Let's say you're a huge Pink Floyd fan. You go out and happen to meet someone with a Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon(of course), shirt on, you say, \"hey, cool shirt, I like Pink Floyd too!\" They reply, \"thanks, they're my favorite band! I really love all their songs.\" Awesome what a cool person you just met, and they seem well versed, so you inquire further, \"what's your favorite song? Mine is Time.\" They look a little confused, \"I haven't heard that one, I really like the one about school.\" Oh no, you think to yourself, I've been duped, \"you haven't heard Time? But you're wearing- Uh, so you like The Wall then?\" Again, they're confused, \"the wall? what- I like the one where they go 'WE DONT NEED NO-'\" You cut them off, \"yeah, I, uh know the song. I thought you said they were your favorite band?\" He's immediately offended, \"Oh just cause I don't know every song they can't be my favorite?\" You defend yourself, \"**no I just thought you would know more**.\" And that is my point. It is unfair and dishonest to the person you are speaking to for you to claim you love\/favorite\/whatever something that you know little to nothing about. My proposed solution is just for people to be honest. If you like something but don't know much about it, then say that. Some clarifiers: If someone knows a lot about the music a band makes\/made, ie their songs and albums, but nothing about the band members, they are exempt from my ire. Same goes for films and whatever else people gatekeep in a similar way. Esoteric knowledge is irrelevant, unless I guess its also the main topic. I'd also clarify that I am not putting the blame on any individual here, rather I think that it is our toxic society's fault that people feel the need to lie about mundane things in such ways. Similarly, it is not dishonest because you don't *actually* love Pink Floyd or w\/e, it's dishonest because when you say you love something, at least in American society, that usually denotes a deeper understanding\/familiarization of\/with it.","c_root_id_A":"ggkvlen","c_root_id_B":"ggkwzog","created_at_utc_A":1608552647,"created_at_utc_B":1608553909,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"It's not really clear what part you are open for CMV? I'm also not sure anyone would really disagree with you. We all have seen dickish gatekeeper types and we have all seen \" I love Marvel Stuff, see my Superman shirt\" and both can be an embarrassment to the human species.","human_ref_B":"I like vanilla ice cream, it\u2019s my favourite for a long time. Honestly it took me until past the age of 30, to really find out that Vanilla is a spice derived from orchids of the genus Vanilla, primarily obtained from pods of the Mexican species, flat-leaved vanilla (V. planifolia). I am so dumb and rude :) My only counterpoint to your CMV is to let it go? I am pretty knowledgeable (but not a hardcore expert) about Star Wars and Marvel, if I find myself in a conversation like yours with Pink Floyd example, I know enough to disengage politely before anyone\u2019s feelings are hurt. If someone innocently want to create a human connection by saying they like something and it\u2019s their favourite, don\u2019t hold it too much against them. Quite different if some pretended to be a know it all, those people I expect to be fair game for most.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1262.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"khg04c","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: While Gatekeeping is dumb and rude, so is saying you like something when you know little to nothing about it. Nobody likes a gatekeeper, right? People can like whatever they want, with whatever level of involvement they choose. It's stupid to tell someone they \"aren't allowed\" to like something because they don't know much about it. However, I also think that it is stupid, and rude, to say that you really like something when you don't know much about it. I'm picking on a very specific kind of person here so I'll give a detailed example. Let's say you're a huge Pink Floyd fan. You go out and happen to meet someone with a Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon(of course), shirt on, you say, \"hey, cool shirt, I like Pink Floyd too!\" They reply, \"thanks, they're my favorite band! I really love all their songs.\" Awesome what a cool person you just met, and they seem well versed, so you inquire further, \"what's your favorite song? Mine is Time.\" They look a little confused, \"I haven't heard that one, I really like the one about school.\" Oh no, you think to yourself, I've been duped, \"you haven't heard Time? But you're wearing- Uh, so you like The Wall then?\" Again, they're confused, \"the wall? what- I like the one where they go 'WE DONT NEED NO-'\" You cut them off, \"yeah, I, uh know the song. I thought you said they were your favorite band?\" He's immediately offended, \"Oh just cause I don't know every song they can't be my favorite?\" You defend yourself, \"**no I just thought you would know more**.\" And that is my point. It is unfair and dishonest to the person you are speaking to for you to claim you love\/favorite\/whatever something that you know little to nothing about. My proposed solution is just for people to be honest. If you like something but don't know much about it, then say that. Some clarifiers: If someone knows a lot about the music a band makes\/made, ie their songs and albums, but nothing about the band members, they are exempt from my ire. Same goes for films and whatever else people gatekeep in a similar way. Esoteric knowledge is irrelevant, unless I guess its also the main topic. I'd also clarify that I am not putting the blame on any individual here, rather I think that it is our toxic society's fault that people feel the need to lie about mundane things in such ways. Similarly, it is not dishonest because you don't *actually* love Pink Floyd or w\/e, it's dishonest because when you say you love something, at least in American society, that usually denotes a deeper understanding\/familiarization of\/with it.","c_root_id_A":"ggl3bfd","c_root_id_B":"ggl8vlg","created_at_utc_A":1608558774,"created_at_utc_B":1608562310,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think we should have more gate keeping. There are some conversations that people just can\u2019t have but they feel they know so much about it. How many people make weird clueless statements about economics, medicine, or science while having 0 education in the field. I apologize for the anecdote but how many people saw friends and family making weird statements about covid on Facebook; That it\u2019ll end in a few weeks and people were overreacting.","human_ref_B":"Your issues seems to preclude the possibility that they know even less about other bands? Or that they\u2019ve only heard a few of their songs but had their socks so utterly blown off that even that small knowledge base, to them, makes them win out over all other bands they know.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3536.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"khg04c","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: While Gatekeeping is dumb and rude, so is saying you like something when you know little to nothing about it. Nobody likes a gatekeeper, right? People can like whatever they want, with whatever level of involvement they choose. It's stupid to tell someone they \"aren't allowed\" to like something because they don't know much about it. However, I also think that it is stupid, and rude, to say that you really like something when you don't know much about it. I'm picking on a very specific kind of person here so I'll give a detailed example. Let's say you're a huge Pink Floyd fan. You go out and happen to meet someone with a Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon(of course), shirt on, you say, \"hey, cool shirt, I like Pink Floyd too!\" They reply, \"thanks, they're my favorite band! I really love all their songs.\" Awesome what a cool person you just met, and they seem well versed, so you inquire further, \"what's your favorite song? Mine is Time.\" They look a little confused, \"I haven't heard that one, I really like the one about school.\" Oh no, you think to yourself, I've been duped, \"you haven't heard Time? But you're wearing- Uh, so you like The Wall then?\" Again, they're confused, \"the wall? what- I like the one where they go 'WE DONT NEED NO-'\" You cut them off, \"yeah, I, uh know the song. I thought you said they were your favorite band?\" He's immediately offended, \"Oh just cause I don't know every song they can't be my favorite?\" You defend yourself, \"**no I just thought you would know more**.\" And that is my point. It is unfair and dishonest to the person you are speaking to for you to claim you love\/favorite\/whatever something that you know little to nothing about. My proposed solution is just for people to be honest. If you like something but don't know much about it, then say that. Some clarifiers: If someone knows a lot about the music a band makes\/made, ie their songs and albums, but nothing about the band members, they are exempt from my ire. Same goes for films and whatever else people gatekeep in a similar way. Esoteric knowledge is irrelevant, unless I guess its also the main topic. I'd also clarify that I am not putting the blame on any individual here, rather I think that it is our toxic society's fault that people feel the need to lie about mundane things in such ways. Similarly, it is not dishonest because you don't *actually* love Pink Floyd or w\/e, it's dishonest because when you say you love something, at least in American society, that usually denotes a deeper understanding\/familiarization of\/with it.","c_root_id_A":"ggl3bfd","c_root_id_B":"ggongrb","created_at_utc_A":1608558774,"created_at_utc_B":1608638168,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think we should have more gate keeping. There are some conversations that people just can\u2019t have but they feel they know so much about it. How many people make weird clueless statements about economics, medicine, or science while having 0 education in the field. I apologize for the anecdote but how many people saw friends and family making weird statements about covid on Facebook; That it\u2019ll end in a few weeks and people were overreacting.","human_ref_B":"I don't think there's an issue with liking something, whether you know it or not. There is an issue with talking about something as if you knew it, while having not the faintest clue. There is an issue with being dishonest about your knowledge. There is Dunning-Kruger, many people overestimate the reach of their knowledge. However, saying I you something is not the same as saying you know it (biblical euphemisms notwithstanding). Ever liked a person you didn't really know? Yes, it was just hormones, but that doesn't make it unreal. You might find out later that they're not so great, and it would be unwise to propose marriage before you even spent an afternoon together, but hey, feelings are feelings. Knowledge is practically limitless. I love Beethoven's 5th symfony. I have little to no clue of musical theory, I can't play an instrument, I'm utterly untalented in that regard. I just listened to Gerard Schwarz analyzing it. He knows way more than me of course. But in comparison to what there is still to learn, even for him, he knows next to nothing. Putting made-up numbers on it, say I know \"10\". He knows \"10.000.000\". But there is like \"10^100\" to know. So you can always say that nobody \"knows\" anything. And then, according to your proposal, nobody would ever be entitled to say that they like anything. That would be ludicrous.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":79394.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"khg04c","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: While Gatekeeping is dumb and rude, so is saying you like something when you know little to nothing about it. Nobody likes a gatekeeper, right? People can like whatever they want, with whatever level of involvement they choose. It's stupid to tell someone they \"aren't allowed\" to like something because they don't know much about it. However, I also think that it is stupid, and rude, to say that you really like something when you don't know much about it. I'm picking on a very specific kind of person here so I'll give a detailed example. Let's say you're a huge Pink Floyd fan. You go out and happen to meet someone with a Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon(of course), shirt on, you say, \"hey, cool shirt, I like Pink Floyd too!\" They reply, \"thanks, they're my favorite band! I really love all their songs.\" Awesome what a cool person you just met, and they seem well versed, so you inquire further, \"what's your favorite song? Mine is Time.\" They look a little confused, \"I haven't heard that one, I really like the one about school.\" Oh no, you think to yourself, I've been duped, \"you haven't heard Time? But you're wearing- Uh, so you like The Wall then?\" Again, they're confused, \"the wall? what- I like the one where they go 'WE DONT NEED NO-'\" You cut them off, \"yeah, I, uh know the song. I thought you said they were your favorite band?\" He's immediately offended, \"Oh just cause I don't know every song they can't be my favorite?\" You defend yourself, \"**no I just thought you would know more**.\" And that is my point. It is unfair and dishonest to the person you are speaking to for you to claim you love\/favorite\/whatever something that you know little to nothing about. My proposed solution is just for people to be honest. If you like something but don't know much about it, then say that. Some clarifiers: If someone knows a lot about the music a band makes\/made, ie their songs and albums, but nothing about the band members, they are exempt from my ire. Same goes for films and whatever else people gatekeep in a similar way. Esoteric knowledge is irrelevant, unless I guess its also the main topic. I'd also clarify that I am not putting the blame on any individual here, rather I think that it is our toxic society's fault that people feel the need to lie about mundane things in such ways. Similarly, it is not dishonest because you don't *actually* love Pink Floyd or w\/e, it's dishonest because when you say you love something, at least in American society, that usually denotes a deeper understanding\/familiarization of\/with it.","c_root_id_A":"ggongrb","c_root_id_B":"ggm023y","created_at_utc_A":1608638168,"created_at_utc_B":1608576377,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't think there's an issue with liking something, whether you know it or not. There is an issue with talking about something as if you knew it, while having not the faintest clue. There is an issue with being dishonest about your knowledge. There is Dunning-Kruger, many people overestimate the reach of their knowledge. However, saying I you something is not the same as saying you know it (biblical euphemisms notwithstanding). Ever liked a person you didn't really know? Yes, it was just hormones, but that doesn't make it unreal. You might find out later that they're not so great, and it would be unwise to propose marriage before you even spent an afternoon together, but hey, feelings are feelings. Knowledge is practically limitless. I love Beethoven's 5th symfony. I have little to no clue of musical theory, I can't play an instrument, I'm utterly untalented in that regard. I just listened to Gerard Schwarz analyzing it. He knows way more than me of course. But in comparison to what there is still to learn, even for him, he knows next to nothing. Putting made-up numbers on it, say I know \"10\". He knows \"10.000.000\". But there is like \"10^100\" to know. So you can always say that nobody \"knows\" anything. And then, according to your proposal, nobody would ever be entitled to say that they like anything. That would be ludicrous.","human_ref_B":"I love Heavy Metal, but am absolute shite at remembering song names, newer band names, which band sang which song, and I don't really care about personal info on band members. It's a failing of my memory that applies to just about every genre of music I listen to, but anyone who knew me (especially in HS and college) knew I was a metal head based on what they could hear deafening me from my headphones. A lot of people would say I know little about metal if they just spoke with me and didn't see my stupid large MP3 library of it, or all the subsets of metal that I also listen too. Also, it's not my job to make the other person feel I was truthful to them. Their perception of my truthfulness or deceipfullness is wholly their own. Just because the only member of Metallica who's name i know is Lars Ulrich doesn't mean I don't like or am lying about liking their music. Just means I have a shite memory. To some other personnit may mean they like the songs and don't care who sings them, and to another person, they're just getting into the band.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":61791.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"30shwp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Listing the weight of unpeeled potatoes in a recipe that calls for those potatoes to be peeled is ridiculous Every recipe I've ever come across lists the weight of potatoes to be used as their *unpeeled* weight, even if the potatoes should be peeled before use. Because potatoes vary wildly in size, and because the skin represents a nontrivial amount of a potato's mass, the mass of peeled potatoes you wind up with in the end varies too much for the original requirement to be useful. It should be the unpeeled weight, not the peeled weight, that should be taken as a measure. To demonstrate this, consider the following example. A recipe calls for 1 kg of unpeeled potatoes. The density of unpeeled potatoes is 614 kg\/m^3 so 1 kg is 1000\/.614 = 1628 cm^3 of potato volume. Now let's consider a batch of small potatoes. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that all of them are identical: they are perfectly spherical and have a radius of exactly 2 cm. We'll also say that their skin is 1 mm thick (in practice, we probably won't be able to peel off that little, even with a good peeler, so I'm being conservative). Given that the volume of a sphere is V = 4\/3 * \u03c0 * r^3 we can see that each potato has a volume of 33.51 cm^3 which in turns means that 1 kg of potatoes contains 48.6 of these small potatoes. The peeled potato has a radius of 1.9 cm and its resulting volume is 28.73 cm^3 --a difference of 4.78 cm^3 per potato. Multiplied by 48.6 potatoes, the total loss in volume is 232.3 cm^3 which translates to 142.6 grams, or 14.26% of the total mass. Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm (which is again a conservative number; potatoes vary much more in size), we find that each potato has a volume of 113.1 cm^3 resulting in 14.4 potatoes per kilogram. The peeled volume is 102.16 cm^3 meaning a difference of 10.94 cm^3 per potato. Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram, that translates into 157.5 cm^3 of lost volume, which is only 96.7 grams or 9.67% of potato mass. So given a batch of small vs big potatoes, the difference lost to peeling in both scenarios is 45.9 g per kg, which amounts to one whole medium-sized potato. In practice, the difference will be seriously bigger: the amount peeled off is more than 1 mm of skin, and the difference in size between the potatoes will be more than 1 cm of radius. Naysayers might argue that one medium-sized potato in a kilogram doesn't matter all that much. Obviously these people are not potato lovers. Given the deliciousness of baked potatoes and the resulting dog-eat-dog competitiveness around the dinner table when it comes to eating them, every potato counts. Please, change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cpve7ci","c_root_id_B":"cpvdltb","created_at_utc_A":1427711887,"created_at_utc_B":1427708938,"score_A":18,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"An ingredient list is provided in order to give the prospective chef a list to shop from. Quantities of potatoes are provided in unpeeled format, because *you can't buy potatoes unpeeled.* If the skin on a potatoe can actually account for such a discrepancy in weight, is it not smarter to provide the measurements as they will be purchased?","human_ref_B":"I think you have two basic flaws here. First, you're assuming some very small potatoes in your math: I don't, generally, even see potatoes smaller than an inch in diameter. Except fingerlings, and why would you peel those? Second, a recipe has quantities to achieve a suggested serving size and to assure the proper proportion of the ingredients to one another. The second factor matters most with things like based goods; in a dish like baked potatoes (the dish you use an example and one which I'm not really sure involves peeling), it's not really an issue. And if your concern is serving size, if you really care so much about that extra 10 percent (assuming these amazingly small potatoes), add another one. Your love of spuds doesn't make the recipe writer deserving of ridicule.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2949.0,"score_ratio":3.6} {"post_id":"30shwp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Listing the weight of unpeeled potatoes in a recipe that calls for those potatoes to be peeled is ridiculous Every recipe I've ever come across lists the weight of potatoes to be used as their *unpeeled* weight, even if the potatoes should be peeled before use. Because potatoes vary wildly in size, and because the skin represents a nontrivial amount of a potato's mass, the mass of peeled potatoes you wind up with in the end varies too much for the original requirement to be useful. It should be the unpeeled weight, not the peeled weight, that should be taken as a measure. To demonstrate this, consider the following example. A recipe calls for 1 kg of unpeeled potatoes. The density of unpeeled potatoes is 614 kg\/m^3 so 1 kg is 1000\/.614 = 1628 cm^3 of potato volume. Now let's consider a batch of small potatoes. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that all of them are identical: they are perfectly spherical and have a radius of exactly 2 cm. We'll also say that their skin is 1 mm thick (in practice, we probably won't be able to peel off that little, even with a good peeler, so I'm being conservative). Given that the volume of a sphere is V = 4\/3 * \u03c0 * r^3 we can see that each potato has a volume of 33.51 cm^3 which in turns means that 1 kg of potatoes contains 48.6 of these small potatoes. The peeled potato has a radius of 1.9 cm and its resulting volume is 28.73 cm^3 --a difference of 4.78 cm^3 per potato. Multiplied by 48.6 potatoes, the total loss in volume is 232.3 cm^3 which translates to 142.6 grams, or 14.26% of the total mass. Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm (which is again a conservative number; potatoes vary much more in size), we find that each potato has a volume of 113.1 cm^3 resulting in 14.4 potatoes per kilogram. The peeled volume is 102.16 cm^3 meaning a difference of 10.94 cm^3 per potato. Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram, that translates into 157.5 cm^3 of lost volume, which is only 96.7 grams or 9.67% of potato mass. So given a batch of small vs big potatoes, the difference lost to peeling in both scenarios is 45.9 g per kg, which amounts to one whole medium-sized potato. In practice, the difference will be seriously bigger: the amount peeled off is more than 1 mm of skin, and the difference in size between the potatoes will be more than 1 cm of radius. Naysayers might argue that one medium-sized potato in a kilogram doesn't matter all that much. Obviously these people are not potato lovers. Given the deliciousness of baked potatoes and the resulting dog-eat-dog competitiveness around the dinner table when it comes to eating them, every potato counts. Please, change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cpvgvrf","c_root_id_B":"cpvezoa","created_at_utc_A":1427721113,"created_at_utc_B":1427715266,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The point of listing the weight is simply so that people know how much to buy. For making something where having a precise amount matters (Gnocchi) then recipes do list peeled weight. But for most potato recipes then being off by a few percent just doesn't matter.","human_ref_B":"I have not actually seen many recipes that call for potatoes by weight. Peeled or unpeeled. They have always been something like \"Two large potatoes\" or \"5 small potatoes\" etc. When they want to be more specific they have always been by volume (1 cup of potatoes cubed).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5847.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"30shwp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Listing the weight of unpeeled potatoes in a recipe that calls for those potatoes to be peeled is ridiculous Every recipe I've ever come across lists the weight of potatoes to be used as their *unpeeled* weight, even if the potatoes should be peeled before use. Because potatoes vary wildly in size, and because the skin represents a nontrivial amount of a potato's mass, the mass of peeled potatoes you wind up with in the end varies too much for the original requirement to be useful. It should be the unpeeled weight, not the peeled weight, that should be taken as a measure. To demonstrate this, consider the following example. A recipe calls for 1 kg of unpeeled potatoes. The density of unpeeled potatoes is 614 kg\/m^3 so 1 kg is 1000\/.614 = 1628 cm^3 of potato volume. Now let's consider a batch of small potatoes. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that all of them are identical: they are perfectly spherical and have a radius of exactly 2 cm. We'll also say that their skin is 1 mm thick (in practice, we probably won't be able to peel off that little, even with a good peeler, so I'm being conservative). Given that the volume of a sphere is V = 4\/3 * \u03c0 * r^3 we can see that each potato has a volume of 33.51 cm^3 which in turns means that 1 kg of potatoes contains 48.6 of these small potatoes. The peeled potato has a radius of 1.9 cm and its resulting volume is 28.73 cm^3 --a difference of 4.78 cm^3 per potato. Multiplied by 48.6 potatoes, the total loss in volume is 232.3 cm^3 which translates to 142.6 grams, or 14.26% of the total mass. Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm (which is again a conservative number; potatoes vary much more in size), we find that each potato has a volume of 113.1 cm^3 resulting in 14.4 potatoes per kilogram. The peeled volume is 102.16 cm^3 meaning a difference of 10.94 cm^3 per potato. Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram, that translates into 157.5 cm^3 of lost volume, which is only 96.7 grams or 9.67% of potato mass. So given a batch of small vs big potatoes, the difference lost to peeling in both scenarios is 45.9 g per kg, which amounts to one whole medium-sized potato. In practice, the difference will be seriously bigger: the amount peeled off is more than 1 mm of skin, and the difference in size between the potatoes will be more than 1 cm of radius. Naysayers might argue that one medium-sized potato in a kilogram doesn't matter all that much. Obviously these people are not potato lovers. Given the deliciousness of baked potatoes and the resulting dog-eat-dog competitiveness around the dinner table when it comes to eating them, every potato counts. Please, change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cpvgvrf","c_root_id_B":"cpvgdju","created_at_utc_A":1427721113,"created_at_utc_B":1427719775,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The point of listing the weight is simply so that people know how much to buy. For making something where having a precise amount matters (Gnocchi) then recipes do list peeled weight. But for most potato recipes then being off by a few percent just doesn't matter.","human_ref_B":"The recipe gives the weight of potatoes for the cook to go out and buy ... the cook can use common sense and buy medium size potatoes, and then if the potatoes are particularly small, they can buy a bit extra to compensate ... it's only a rough guide because recipes don't need precise amounts of potato, and cooks will tend to adjust the amount anyway, depending on their own preference. For example, if you are making a shepherd's pie, you can make the mashed potato topping as thick as you like, so the kilo of potatoes in the recipe is only a rough guide for beginners.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1338.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"30shwp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Listing the weight of unpeeled potatoes in a recipe that calls for those potatoes to be peeled is ridiculous Every recipe I've ever come across lists the weight of potatoes to be used as their *unpeeled* weight, even if the potatoes should be peeled before use. Because potatoes vary wildly in size, and because the skin represents a nontrivial amount of a potato's mass, the mass of peeled potatoes you wind up with in the end varies too much for the original requirement to be useful. It should be the unpeeled weight, not the peeled weight, that should be taken as a measure. To demonstrate this, consider the following example. A recipe calls for 1 kg of unpeeled potatoes. The density of unpeeled potatoes is 614 kg\/m^3 so 1 kg is 1000\/.614 = 1628 cm^3 of potato volume. Now let's consider a batch of small potatoes. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that all of them are identical: they are perfectly spherical and have a radius of exactly 2 cm. We'll also say that their skin is 1 mm thick (in practice, we probably won't be able to peel off that little, even with a good peeler, so I'm being conservative). Given that the volume of a sphere is V = 4\/3 * \u03c0 * r^3 we can see that each potato has a volume of 33.51 cm^3 which in turns means that 1 kg of potatoes contains 48.6 of these small potatoes. The peeled potato has a radius of 1.9 cm and its resulting volume is 28.73 cm^3 --a difference of 4.78 cm^3 per potato. Multiplied by 48.6 potatoes, the total loss in volume is 232.3 cm^3 which translates to 142.6 grams, or 14.26% of the total mass. Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm (which is again a conservative number; potatoes vary much more in size), we find that each potato has a volume of 113.1 cm^3 resulting in 14.4 potatoes per kilogram. The peeled volume is 102.16 cm^3 meaning a difference of 10.94 cm^3 per potato. Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram, that translates into 157.5 cm^3 of lost volume, which is only 96.7 grams or 9.67% of potato mass. So given a batch of small vs big potatoes, the difference lost to peeling in both scenarios is 45.9 g per kg, which amounts to one whole medium-sized potato. In practice, the difference will be seriously bigger: the amount peeled off is more than 1 mm of skin, and the difference in size between the potatoes will be more than 1 cm of radius. Naysayers might argue that one medium-sized potato in a kilogram doesn't matter all that much. Obviously these people are not potato lovers. Given the deliciousness of baked potatoes and the resulting dog-eat-dog competitiveness around the dinner table when it comes to eating them, every potato counts. Please, change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cpvgvrf","c_root_id_B":"cpvg3u3","created_at_utc_A":1427721113,"created_at_utc_B":1427719004,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The point of listing the weight is simply so that people know how much to buy. For making something where having a precise amount matters (Gnocchi) then recipes do list peeled weight. But for most potato recipes then being off by a few percent just doesn't matter.","human_ref_B":"- People need to go out and buy the right amount of potatoes. - A recipe will list ingredients with the precision that that recipe needs. If the recipe needs to be precise to the gram, the ingredients will be listed to the gram. If they don't, they won't. - Throw in an extra potato, problem solved.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2109.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"30shwp","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Listing the weight of unpeeled potatoes in a recipe that calls for those potatoes to be peeled is ridiculous Every recipe I've ever come across lists the weight of potatoes to be used as their *unpeeled* weight, even if the potatoes should be peeled before use. Because potatoes vary wildly in size, and because the skin represents a nontrivial amount of a potato's mass, the mass of peeled potatoes you wind up with in the end varies too much for the original requirement to be useful. It should be the unpeeled weight, not the peeled weight, that should be taken as a measure. To demonstrate this, consider the following example. A recipe calls for 1 kg of unpeeled potatoes. The density of unpeeled potatoes is 614 kg\/m^3 so 1 kg is 1000\/.614 = 1628 cm^3 of potato volume. Now let's consider a batch of small potatoes. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that all of them are identical: they are perfectly spherical and have a radius of exactly 2 cm. We'll also say that their skin is 1 mm thick (in practice, we probably won't be able to peel off that little, even with a good peeler, so I'm being conservative). Given that the volume of a sphere is V = 4\/3 * \u03c0 * r^3 we can see that each potato has a volume of 33.51 cm^3 which in turns means that 1 kg of potatoes contains 48.6 of these small potatoes. The peeled potato has a radius of 1.9 cm and its resulting volume is 28.73 cm^3 --a difference of 4.78 cm^3 per potato. Multiplied by 48.6 potatoes, the total loss in volume is 232.3 cm^3 which translates to 142.6 grams, or 14.26% of the total mass. Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm (which is again a conservative number; potatoes vary much more in size), we find that each potato has a volume of 113.1 cm^3 resulting in 14.4 potatoes per kilogram. The peeled volume is 102.16 cm^3 meaning a difference of 10.94 cm^3 per potato. Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram, that translates into 157.5 cm^3 of lost volume, which is only 96.7 grams or 9.67% of potato mass. So given a batch of small vs big potatoes, the difference lost to peeling in both scenarios is 45.9 g per kg, which amounts to one whole medium-sized potato. In practice, the difference will be seriously bigger: the amount peeled off is more than 1 mm of skin, and the difference in size between the potatoes will be more than 1 cm of radius. Naysayers might argue that one medium-sized potato in a kilogram doesn't matter all that much. Obviously these people are not potato lovers. Given the deliciousness of baked potatoes and the resulting dog-eat-dog competitiveness around the dinner table when it comes to eating them, every potato counts. Please, change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cpvlifz","c_root_id_B":"cpvjc0b","created_at_utc_A":1427730186,"created_at_utc_B":1427726331,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You're being unnecessarily pedantic. Unlike in baking (where exact ratios to ingredients matter a great deal) cooking is much more art than science. The person who wrote the recipe was vage about the amounts because an exact amount doesn't matter. YOU should be the one deciding if you want more or less potato, how thick to cut the pieces, how much salt to add, or whether or not to add bacon. If you aren't doctoring your recipes to suit YOUR tastes, you're doing it wrong.","human_ref_B":"If the recipe is giving imprecise weight of ingredients - the assumption is that for THIS recipe a certain variation in ingredient proportion is irrelevant or is a matter of taste. Potatoes is often just such an ingredient - for many ingredients 10% less vs. 10% more does not make a significant difference in taste or texture, and the ultimate decision to tweak the amount of potatoes is left to \"taste\" of the cook. You can see this for a lot ingredients: E.g., a recipe may call for \"one medium onion\" (I bet there is more than 10% variation for medium onion size), \"one large egg,\" , salt\/pepper \"to taste,\" \"2 pickles\" - etc. etc. Only in RARE circumstances would precise weight of potatoes matter.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3855.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"5r2x52","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Mike Pence would be a better President than Donald Trump. I've seen a conversation like this a lot on Reddit: Somebody says something like, \"I wish Donald Trump would die!\" and then somebody else responds, \"No, that would mean Mike Pence would be president and that would be even worse!\" I don't really see where this is coming from. Mike Pence's views seem to be more in line with most conservatives and I think he'd get along better with the Republican congress and be more willing to compromise with Democrats. He's also a lot more level-headed and mature than Donald Trump. A good example is the Hamilton controversy, where Mike Pence was called out by the cast while seeing a Broadway show. Pence said he wasn't offended by the remarks, but Donald Trump complained on twitter about how the Mike Pence was \"harassed\" and demanded an apology from the cast. The main reason he has a bad rap, (correct me if I'm wrong), is mostly because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act he signed into law when he was governor of Indiana. But nothing in the law itself, as far as I can tell, is inherently homophobic, and it had overwhelming support (40 out of 50 votes) by the state legislators. Mike Pence said of the law, \"If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn't eat there anymore. As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it.\" I think Mike Pence is mostly a victim of misinformation and hyperbole. He's not a perfect person, and I don't agree with all or even most of his views, but I think he's a decent person who doesn't deserve the general opinion of him (at least on Reddit). _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dd41nta","c_root_id_B":"dd3zlj2","created_at_utc_A":1485807170,"created_at_utc_B":1485804883,"score_A":43,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Mike Pence has some very scary views, and it does seem like he's willing to legislate those views. He is a proponent of conversion therapy:\"Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior\" (Source). His record on LGBT rights in general is terrible, not just for his opinions, but for the way he's actually voted. The thing about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is that although it didn't explicitly talk about discriminating against gay people, if that's not the goal then there's no reason for the bill. People already have religious freedom in the US. What we don't have is the freedom to discriminate against others because of our own religion. Pence also wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, defund Planned Parenthood, and end birthright citizenship in order to get rid of \"anchor babies\" of undocumented immigrants. Trump says a lot of hateful things, and that scares me. I think it's dangerous for a society to have a prominent political leader saying hateful things. But I also think Trump is an idiot. Pence, on the other hand, is smart. He's a competent politician. I think if he were president, he'd know how to get shit done. That scares me way more than Trump.","human_ref_B":"> As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it.\" ...but that's exactly what he signed into law. A bill that legalized discrimination. I happen to agree with it, but I'm not going to pretend like that's not what the bill does. That's exactly what it does.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2287.0,"score_ratio":6.1428571429} {"post_id":"5r2x52","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Mike Pence would be a better President than Donald Trump. I've seen a conversation like this a lot on Reddit: Somebody says something like, \"I wish Donald Trump would die!\" and then somebody else responds, \"No, that would mean Mike Pence would be president and that would be even worse!\" I don't really see where this is coming from. Mike Pence's views seem to be more in line with most conservatives and I think he'd get along better with the Republican congress and be more willing to compromise with Democrats. He's also a lot more level-headed and mature than Donald Trump. A good example is the Hamilton controversy, where Mike Pence was called out by the cast while seeing a Broadway show. Pence said he wasn't offended by the remarks, but Donald Trump complained on twitter about how the Mike Pence was \"harassed\" and demanded an apology from the cast. The main reason he has a bad rap, (correct me if I'm wrong), is mostly because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act he signed into law when he was governor of Indiana. But nothing in the law itself, as far as I can tell, is inherently homophobic, and it had overwhelming support (40 out of 50 votes) by the state legislators. Mike Pence said of the law, \"If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn't eat there anymore. As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it.\" I think Mike Pence is mostly a victim of misinformation and hyperbole. He's not a perfect person, and I don't agree with all or even most of his views, but I think he's a decent person who doesn't deserve the general opinion of him (at least on Reddit). _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dd41t3j","c_root_id_B":"dd3zlj2","created_at_utc_A":1485807332,"created_at_utc_B":1485804883,"score_A":15,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Vice President Mike Pence woukd make a worse President for a few reasons. Firstly, facts. As Governor of Indiana, which you touched upon, he signed an extremely homophobic and discriminatory bill. There is nothing to say it wouldn't be put into place nationally, saying as many Republicans line up with his beliefs. Mike Pence is also a vehement anti-abortion activist, and was the first Vice President to ever speak at a March for Life. He signed House Bill 1337, an extremely restrictive law keeping certain abortion procedures from being carried out. It was so vague it could also limit abortions based on whether the babies are disabled, they have a certain skin color, or they are have a certain gender. Luckily, a federal court blocked it. He is also a flip-flopper. In December 2015, he called Trump's ban on Muslims proposal \"offensive and unconstitutional.\" While he is praising it today, he still tried to block Syrian refugees from being settled in Indiana. He is also very, *very*, Christian, nearly fundamentalist. He is a strong supporter of creationism and the idea that God created everything. He is inherently anti-LGBT in general for these reasons. He states he is anti-discrimination, but his voting record clearly shows otherwise. He is very pro-gun. After school shootings nationwide, he signed a bill that would allow Indianians to keep guns in cars in the direct vicinity of schools. He brought in the NRA to teach the Indiana National Guard about concealed carry. Senate Bill 98, which he signed, limits available ways to sue gun and ammunition manufacturers. As Governor, he supported private schools heavily over public schools and slashed the latter's funding while giving programs to the former. Under him, Indiana was the first state to remove Common Core standards. He is extremely pro-coal and anti-regulation. He has denounced the EPA's Clean Power Plan directly to President Obama. He said Indiana would refuse to comply, almost into rebellious territory, saying that even if legally blocked, Indiana would not make its own anti-emissions plan. Just because he is calmer and thinks before he speaks doesn't and wouldn't make him better.","human_ref_B":"> As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it.\" ...but that's exactly what he signed into law. A bill that legalized discrimination. I happen to agree with it, but I'm not going to pretend like that's not what the bill does. That's exactly what it does.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2449.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429} {"post_id":"5r2x52","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Mike Pence would be a better President than Donald Trump. I've seen a conversation like this a lot on Reddit: Somebody says something like, \"I wish Donald Trump would die!\" and then somebody else responds, \"No, that would mean Mike Pence would be president and that would be even worse!\" I don't really see where this is coming from. Mike Pence's views seem to be more in line with most conservatives and I think he'd get along better with the Republican congress and be more willing to compromise with Democrats. He's also a lot more level-headed and mature than Donald Trump. A good example is the Hamilton controversy, where Mike Pence was called out by the cast while seeing a Broadway show. Pence said he wasn't offended by the remarks, but Donald Trump complained on twitter about how the Mike Pence was \"harassed\" and demanded an apology from the cast. The main reason he has a bad rap, (correct me if I'm wrong), is mostly because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act he signed into law when he was governor of Indiana. But nothing in the law itself, as far as I can tell, is inherently homophobic, and it had overwhelming support (40 out of 50 votes) by the state legislators. Mike Pence said of the law, \"If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn't eat there anymore. As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it.\" I think Mike Pence is mostly a victim of misinformation and hyperbole. He's not a perfect person, and I don't agree with all or even most of his views, but I think he's a decent person who doesn't deserve the general opinion of him (at least on Reddit). _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dd3zlj2","c_root_id_B":"dd44v9k","created_at_utc_A":1485804883,"created_at_utc_B":1485810727,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"> As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it.\" ...but that's exactly what he signed into law. A bill that legalized discrimination. I happen to agree with it, but I'm not going to pretend like that's not what the bill does. That's exactly what it does.","human_ref_B":"> I think he'd get along better with the Republican congress and be more willing to compromise with Democrats I think the two are mutually exclusive. Trump may need to form a coalition with Democrats on infrastructure, trade, ACA replacement, and other domestic issues because he goes against the Republican norm on many of these issues. If it were up to traditional Republicans, they would continue NAFTA as-is, engage in the TPP, ignore infrastructure, and embrace Wall St. over Main St. This is where I think the Democrats are currently shitting in their collective beds. They should be looking to set the ground work for deals. For instance, if I were the House Minority Leader I would be telling my caucus the following, \"Speak out against Trump on immigration, core beliefs on equal rights where Trump brings them up, and select cabinet nominees. Avoid any personal attacks. Attend the inauguration. Don't comment on silly side-tracks like election fraud and crowd side. I will work with Trump to find common ground.\" Then I would go to Trump and basically make a deal. If Trump promises to work with us on ACA replacement, and veto any bills that seek to limit a woman's right to choose and marriage equality (social issues that Trump sees as settled law) then we will work with him on economic issues providing bipartisan support that attempts to show him as a centrist. If the Democrats continue down their current path they will only push Trump to the right on issues where he is currently near the center. If Pence were the president, he would completely ignore the Democrats. Given that 2018 will likely be a tough year for Democrats in the Senate with the seats that are contested, they would be better served to pull Trump to the center than push him to the right.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5844.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571} {"post_id":"5r2x52","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Mike Pence would be a better President than Donald Trump. I've seen a conversation like this a lot on Reddit: Somebody says something like, \"I wish Donald Trump would die!\" and then somebody else responds, \"No, that would mean Mike Pence would be president and that would be even worse!\" I don't really see where this is coming from. Mike Pence's views seem to be more in line with most conservatives and I think he'd get along better with the Republican congress and be more willing to compromise with Democrats. He's also a lot more level-headed and mature than Donald Trump. A good example is the Hamilton controversy, where Mike Pence was called out by the cast while seeing a Broadway show. Pence said he wasn't offended by the remarks, but Donald Trump complained on twitter about how the Mike Pence was \"harassed\" and demanded an apology from the cast. The main reason he has a bad rap, (correct me if I'm wrong), is mostly because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act he signed into law when he was governor of Indiana. But nothing in the law itself, as far as I can tell, is inherently homophobic, and it had overwhelming support (40 out of 50 votes) by the state legislators. Mike Pence said of the law, \"If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn't eat there anymore. As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it.\" I think Mike Pence is mostly a victim of misinformation and hyperbole. He's not a perfect person, and I don't agree with all or even most of his views, but I think he's a decent person who doesn't deserve the general opinion of him (at least on Reddit). _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dd45g0z","c_root_id_B":"dd4an5w","created_at_utc_A":1485811373,"created_at_utc_B":1485817386,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I actually agree from a practical standpoint. I think, however, that Trump will serve as a glaring example of how not to be president. In coming elections, \"Trump\" could be a curse word representative of regressive policies. Pence would do much of the same but there wouldn't be nearly as much outrage. Trump-level thinking isn't necessarily going anywhere, but in a backwards way, Trump could be the key to more practical, forward-thinking politics.","human_ref_B":"The main reason Mike Pence has a bad reputation is because people in Indiana didn't like him. He replaced one of the most popular governors in the country Mitch Daniels. Mitch wasa pro-business republican who brought tons of jobs to Indiana and still made progressive compromises with democrats. Mike Pence showed up and made indiana look like a bunch of backwater hillbillys and started pushing a socially conservative that embarrassed many people from Indiana. Pence should be thanking his lucky stars that trump grabbed him because he was probably about to lose his own Indiana election","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6013.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"89t58v","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The (relatively) open immigration policies in western developed nations are harmful to developing nations. There has been a lot of debate recently about the effect of immigration on developed nations. Many on the left, along with the more \u201ctraditional\/economic\u201d right, have argued that legal immigration is a net benefit for their nation while the alt-right, nationalists, pro-trumpers, brexiteers and the like have argued the opposite. However, I have seen little to no debate recently challenging or affirming my view regarding the effect of immigration policies on the countries people actually emigrate from. Which brings me here. For context, I am a South African who has immigrated to the US so, despite my viewpoint, I do not believe would-be immigrants have a duty to remain in, and better their home country. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but I still think this is an interesting part of the overall discussion which I have not seen play out. Just to shore up the scope of my CMV, I understand that there is a decent amount of immigration between developed nations; I am more thinking of immigration from countries like South Africa, Brazil, or Poland to Australia, the UK, or the US. I am also not talking about those who spend time in foreign countries on temporary work or student visas, but rather immigration which constitutes a permanent relocation. The major reason behind my view is the phenomenon known as the \u201cbrain-drain\u201d. Owing to the specifics of immigration policies in developed nations, it is generally the most educated, experienced, and\/or skilled people who are able to immigrate. This is because these are the kind of people who can find companies to sponsor their visas or who are able to meet the point requirements in a merit-based system. This means that there is a constant leak of a certain portion of a developing nation\u2019s best and brightest. All their skills, drive, passion, ingenuity, and innovation will go to benefit their host nation rather than their home nation. This issue become more serious when you consider taxes. Most countries have free (aka tax payer funded) public schooling and I know in South Africa that college is partially subsidized by the tax payer as well. Generally, the most educated people earn the most money and pay the most taxes. The thing that make subsidized education sustainable then, is that the tax payers\u2019 investment into a person\u2019s education is often rewarded as that person establishes their career. However, when an educated person immigrates, their home countries gets little or no return on investment. To add insult to injury, the already prosperous, developed nation is the one that benefits from the investment made by the struggling developing nation. I suspect my argument will be more contentious when it comes to refugees but I think it still applies. In recent years, we have seen millions of refugees flee Syria and other countries to the safety and opportunity provided by Western Europe. While I believe there is a strong case for accepting these refugees, I think that doing so is ultimately harmful for Syria if a significant portion of those refugees choose (or are compelled by necessity) to settle in Europe indefinitely. This is because millions of the most pro-democracy, pro-liberal values Syrians no longer live in Syria. Their influence on their home\u2019s politics is significantly reduced. Ultimately, I can\u2019t help but think that this has shored up the power of their authoritarian dictator. I realize this is a long CMV. Thank you to everyone who took the time to read through it. I look forward to seeing what perspectives I have missed or what thoughts I have not considered. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dwtdw8t","c_root_id_B":"dwte1tj","created_at_utc_A":1522875731,"created_at_utc_B":1522875863,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Hi. I mostly agree, but I want to see if I can change your opinion just a smidge. Yes, if you've got a wealthy country that siphons off the best and the brightest from developing countries, that usually benefits the wealthy country and harms the developing one. However, the road is not entirely one-way. There are people who come to a wealth nation, get further education, learn business skills, develop networks, and then having achieved some degree of success, go back to their birth country to apply what they've gained. It's probably a low percentage, I think most come and stay and maybe try to bring over their family with them, but the ones that go back can bring more than they left with. They can use their wealth from their new country plus their networks in the old country and start businesses or schools that they'd not have been able to start had they never left. I think that the rate of return is very low, until something changes. Let's say that the new country they live in undergoes a cultural upheaval (like, say, a Trump presidency, or Brexit) the immigrants may decide that with what they've gained, the opportunities that they didn't have back home are now not just within reach, but easily attainable and perhaps expandable. For an illustration, India sees an awful lot of it's engineers and doctors move to wealthier countries, but it has also seen an awful lot of them move back and start new industries. So, in conclusion, yes, brain drain is real and harmful, but it's not quite as bleak as you paint it. And can sometimes have benefits for both countries.","human_ref_B":"What you\u2019re forgetting is remittances \u2014 emigrants tend to send large amounts of money back to their countries of origin. From Wikipedia: > Remittances increase living standards in the country of origin. Remittances are a large share of GDP in many developing countries, and have been shown to increase the wellbeing of receiving families. In the case of Haiti, the 670,000 adult Haitians living in the OECD sent home about $1,700 per migrant per year. That\u2019s well over double Haiti\u2019s $670 per capita GDP. A study on remittances to Mexico found that remittances lead to a substantial increase in the availability of public services in Mexico, surpassing government spending in some localities. The developing world has seen large gains in their standards of living during the period of globalization. Remittances help maintain these standards while these countries become more fully developed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":132.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cluxxzr","c_root_id_B":"cluy5d5","created_at_utc_A":1415300713,"created_at_utc_B":1415301055,"score_A":28,"score_B":95,"human_ref_A":"This doesn't work because of the burden of proof. One side (the accusing side in most cases) is going to have a lot more work to do than the side that's on defense, because the responsibility is on THEM to dig up facts that prove their case, to find witnesses, etc. It's going to be a lot more time and effort than the defense side. So maybe it costs me $30,000 in fees for all the time it takes my attorneys to find evidence to support my case, but your lawyers have practically no work to do. They just have to cast doubt on that evidence, maybe find a rebuttal witness or two. It isn't going to cost anywhere near $30,000. So where is that money supposed to go, exactly? Courts are about fact-finding. If the facts are on your side, then having a million dollars of lawyers to fight shouldn't change anything. Any decent lawyer should be able to demonstrate that you're in the right.","human_ref_B":"> a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents You're always going to get an imbalance of rich vs poor, even when doing something like this. I can see this going at least two ways: 1. The rich side pays nothing, and chooses themselves to represent, with private advice from a really good group of lawyers. For a corporation, it could be that the corporation already employs a lawyer. Essentially, the money is pushed outside the courts where it can't be managed. 2. The rich side pays lots for representation, but can still find better lawyers because they have a lot more time on their side, and a lot more contacts that would allow them to know the best lawyers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":342.0,"score_ratio":3.3928571429} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cluy594","c_root_id_B":"cluy5d5","created_at_utc_A":1415301051,"created_at_utc_B":1415301055,"score_A":2,"score_B":95,"human_ref_A":"This can also be addressed using a \"loser pays\" system that has a cap. The loser in a civil lawsuit has to pay the winner's legal bills within a certain cap, like 200% of their own legal bills. That way, the little guy isn't afraid to bring a lawsuit, and the person being sued doesn't have to contribute to his own demise. A bigger problem is in the criminal system. The government has so many resources (Prosecutor, police, etc.), that the only way anyone can get a fair trial is to be wealthy themselves. Thus many people plead to a lesser charge in order to salvage some of their lives, even if they weren't guilty. In that case, I agree with you. The only way to level the playing field is to make the government contribute a much larger percentage of their total prosecution budget into the defense's budget. The problem is that people will complain that it's already so hard to prove somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor's office needs more money than the defense.","human_ref_B":"> a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents You're always going to get an imbalance of rich vs poor, even when doing something like this. I can see this going at least two ways: 1. The rich side pays nothing, and chooses themselves to represent, with private advice from a really good group of lawyers. For a corporation, it could be that the corporation already employs a lawyer. Essentially, the money is pushed outside the courts where it can't be managed. 2. The rich side pays lots for representation, but can still find better lawyers because they have a lot more time on their side, and a lot more contacts that would allow them to know the best lawyers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4.0,"score_ratio":47.5} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"clv49nq","c_root_id_B":"clvjjqn","created_at_utc_A":1415311135,"created_at_utc_B":1415343812,"score_A":9,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"This is a tricky subject, and is something that legal scholars the world over have grappled with. However, forcing both parties to pay equal shares in a litigation will not solve anything. I'm going to talk about this issue in the context of civil litigation here: From a policy perspective and procedural standpoint, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is designed to balance numerous competing issues surrounding litigation. Significantly, the FRCP has to balance the need for judicial efficiency (i.e. not hearing frivolous lawsuits\/bogging down courtrooms with suits that lack merit) against ease of access to the judicial system. In addressing these contradictory aims, the FRCP allows, at numerous points during litigation, the chance for a case to be dismissed (ex- after the complaint, at the end of discovery, and at the end of trial but before a verdict is rendered). This ensures that every case will at least be able to be heard, but not necessarily be given a full trial (thus achieving judicial efficiency without restricting access to the judicial system). The problem with \"requir[ing] that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents\" is that it would undermine the policy aims of the FRCP and create unintended consequences. By forcing both sides to contribute money to both their legal team and their opponents', more frivolous lawsuits would arise and would compromise judicial efficiency. Consider, for example, a very large corporation. By establishing a system whereby they are required to contribute to their opponents' legal claims, opponents are more likely to pursue claims which are trivial and are likely to fail at an early stage of litigation. As an individual who now has less to lose by attempting a suit, it is likely that they will be more inclined to pursue them. And, as \/u\/scottevil110 stated, because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove their case, the costs are disproportionately larger for a plaintiff's case, especially at the early stages of litigation where they must plead a case that survives an initial motion to dismiss. Rather than equalizing the playing field, this contention would swing the pendulum to the other end of the spectrum and place a disproportionate burden on those who must defend themselves. There is nothing equal in the eyes of the law about that, especially before a finding of guilt has been rendered. Practically, this would do little to alter any equality or fairness in the eyes of the law. Just because they must split fees does not necessarily mean that the costs will go down. You even said that deeper-pocketed individuals\/corporations can drag suits on almost indefinitely. If they did, the logical conclusion of this proposal is that both parties would have to share in those costs, which may be prohibitively expensive for someone who is already having trouble affording the litigation. This doesn't protect the 'poor' any better than the current system. Your primary concern appears to be that people without a lot of money cannot litigate cases as well or as completely as those with money (and hence is creates the fundamental miscarriage of justice-inequality between litigants). Lawyers recognize this, and have also come up with solutions to this problem. First, they do pro bono work (i.e. free legal services). These are not all that frequent and do not merit more attention. Second, and more importantly, many lawyers who represent clients with little to no money work on a contingency basis. Thus, if a case is unsuccessful, the client owes no money, and if the case is successful, they take a percentage of the final recovery amount. This eliminates a lot of the rich v. poor dichotomy which you have identified, and allows each case to proceed on fair and equal terms. Lastly, in the United States, the trend has been moving towards the British-style of litigation, wherein the loser pays for the opposing party's legal fees. Coupled with contingency fees, the equality issue is eliminated. Obviously, money is not going to be leaving the legal system anytime soon. And thus far, no one has been able to come up with a single solution which would completely equalize the playing field. But, given the code of civil procedure and the various ways lawyers can collect fees, forcing both sides to share in fees will not equalize the playing field.","human_ref_B":"Addressing your solution, you create a huge conflict of interest if the lawyer for the less financially secure side knows their paycheck is coming from the other side.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32677.0,"score_ratio":1.8888888889} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"clvjjqn","c_root_id_B":"clv3h38","created_at_utc_A":1415343812,"created_at_utc_B":1415309829,"score_A":17,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Addressing your solution, you create a huge conflict of interest if the lawyer for the less financially secure side knows their paycheck is coming from the other side.","human_ref_B":"You take away free market and competition. If i am the best lawyer out there, why would i charge the same as someone who barely passed the BAR on the 3rd attempt? the only way this would work would be to outlaw private law practices. And have 100% of the attorneys be state employees with the same salary. Perhaps create some levels so rank them. Lawyer I, Lawyer II, Lawyer III. and i guess in a case you must match lawyers of the same rank?? Point being, unfortunately with private practices, you get what you pay for.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33983.0,"score_ratio":8.5} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"clvi2ud","c_root_id_B":"clvjjqn","created_at_utc_A":1415339102,"created_at_utc_B":1415343812,"score_A":3,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"At what point does each party decide how much they are willing to spend? I mean, if I get sued and find out that someone is spending 100k on their prosecution team so they also must give 100k for my legal defence-- why would I contribute any money? I could just say I was planning on going at it my own, but now that I have my hands on 100k I might as well hire a lawyer. Do you see what I'm saying? If one side is willing to put money forward, what incentive is there for the other side to as well?","human_ref_B":"Addressing your solution, you create a huge conflict of interest if the lawyer for the less financially secure side knows their paycheck is coming from the other side.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4710.0,"score_ratio":5.6666666667} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"clvjjqn","c_root_id_B":"cluy594","created_at_utc_A":1415343812,"created_at_utc_B":1415301051,"score_A":17,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Addressing your solution, you create a huge conflict of interest if the lawyer for the less financially secure side knows their paycheck is coming from the other side.","human_ref_B":"This can also be addressed using a \"loser pays\" system that has a cap. The loser in a civil lawsuit has to pay the winner's legal bills within a certain cap, like 200% of their own legal bills. That way, the little guy isn't afraid to bring a lawsuit, and the person being sued doesn't have to contribute to his own demise. A bigger problem is in the criminal system. The government has so many resources (Prosecutor, police, etc.), that the only way anyone can get a fair trial is to be wealthy themselves. Thus many people plead to a lesser charge in order to salvage some of their lives, even if they weren't guilty. In that case, I agree with you. The only way to level the playing field is to make the government contribute a much larger percentage of their total prosecution budget into the defense's budget. The problem is that people will complain that it's already so hard to prove somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor's office needs more money than the defense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":42761.0,"score_ratio":8.5} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"clvjjqn","c_root_id_B":"clvc2q0","created_at_utc_A":1415343812,"created_at_utc_B":1415326115,"score_A":17,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Addressing your solution, you create a huge conflict of interest if the lawyer for the less financially secure side knows their paycheck is coming from the other side.","human_ref_B":"To your second point, both sides paying equally for all lawyers involved, it would do nothing to stop the inequality for several reasons. * The richer side will now end up paying even less for their lawyer, thus allowing them to get a more expensive, and theoretically better, lawyer for the same amount of money. * The poor side may not be able to pay the expenses for the richer side's lawyer. They are still poor, and by requiring them to cover half of the expenses for an ultra-high end lawyer it would both discourage them from going to court, and make them \"bleed out\" faster before they simply cannot continue to pay no matter what. * What if one party decides to represent themselves, for whatever reason. Do you feel that it is still justified for them to have to pay for half of the other side's lawyer?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17697.0,"score_ratio":8.5} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"clv3h38","c_root_id_B":"clv49nq","created_at_utc_A":1415309829,"created_at_utc_B":1415311135,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"You take away free market and competition. If i am the best lawyer out there, why would i charge the same as someone who barely passed the BAR on the 3rd attempt? the only way this would work would be to outlaw private law practices. And have 100% of the attorneys be state employees with the same salary. Perhaps create some levels so rank them. Lawyer I, Lawyer II, Lawyer III. and i guess in a case you must match lawyers of the same rank?? Point being, unfortunately with private practices, you get what you pay for.","human_ref_B":"This is a tricky subject, and is something that legal scholars the world over have grappled with. However, forcing both parties to pay equal shares in a litigation will not solve anything. I'm going to talk about this issue in the context of civil litigation here: From a policy perspective and procedural standpoint, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is designed to balance numerous competing issues surrounding litigation. Significantly, the FRCP has to balance the need for judicial efficiency (i.e. not hearing frivolous lawsuits\/bogging down courtrooms with suits that lack merit) against ease of access to the judicial system. In addressing these contradictory aims, the FRCP allows, at numerous points during litigation, the chance for a case to be dismissed (ex- after the complaint, at the end of discovery, and at the end of trial but before a verdict is rendered). This ensures that every case will at least be able to be heard, but not necessarily be given a full trial (thus achieving judicial efficiency without restricting access to the judicial system). The problem with \"requir[ing] that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents\" is that it would undermine the policy aims of the FRCP and create unintended consequences. By forcing both sides to contribute money to both their legal team and their opponents', more frivolous lawsuits would arise and would compromise judicial efficiency. Consider, for example, a very large corporation. By establishing a system whereby they are required to contribute to their opponents' legal claims, opponents are more likely to pursue claims which are trivial and are likely to fail at an early stage of litigation. As an individual who now has less to lose by attempting a suit, it is likely that they will be more inclined to pursue them. And, as \/u\/scottevil110 stated, because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove their case, the costs are disproportionately larger for a plaintiff's case, especially at the early stages of litigation where they must plead a case that survives an initial motion to dismiss. Rather than equalizing the playing field, this contention would swing the pendulum to the other end of the spectrum and place a disproportionate burden on those who must defend themselves. There is nothing equal in the eyes of the law about that, especially before a finding of guilt has been rendered. Practically, this would do little to alter any equality or fairness in the eyes of the law. Just because they must split fees does not necessarily mean that the costs will go down. You even said that deeper-pocketed individuals\/corporations can drag suits on almost indefinitely. If they did, the logical conclusion of this proposal is that both parties would have to share in those costs, which may be prohibitively expensive for someone who is already having trouble affording the litigation. This doesn't protect the 'poor' any better than the current system. Your primary concern appears to be that people without a lot of money cannot litigate cases as well or as completely as those with money (and hence is creates the fundamental miscarriage of justice-inequality between litigants). Lawyers recognize this, and have also come up with solutions to this problem. First, they do pro bono work (i.e. free legal services). These are not all that frequent and do not merit more attention. Second, and more importantly, many lawyers who represent clients with little to no money work on a contingency basis. Thus, if a case is unsuccessful, the client owes no money, and if the case is successful, they take a percentage of the final recovery amount. This eliminates a lot of the rich v. poor dichotomy which you have identified, and allows each case to proceed on fair and equal terms. Lastly, in the United States, the trend has been moving towards the British-style of litigation, wherein the loser pays for the opposing party's legal fees. Coupled with contingency fees, the equality issue is eliminated. Obviously, money is not going to be leaving the legal system anytime soon. And thus far, no one has been able to come up with a single solution which would completely equalize the playing field. But, given the code of civil procedure and the various ways lawyers can collect fees, forcing both sides to share in fees will not equalize the playing field.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1306.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"clv49nq","c_root_id_B":"cluy594","created_at_utc_A":1415311135,"created_at_utc_B":1415301051,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This is a tricky subject, and is something that legal scholars the world over have grappled with. However, forcing both parties to pay equal shares in a litigation will not solve anything. I'm going to talk about this issue in the context of civil litigation here: From a policy perspective and procedural standpoint, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is designed to balance numerous competing issues surrounding litigation. Significantly, the FRCP has to balance the need for judicial efficiency (i.e. not hearing frivolous lawsuits\/bogging down courtrooms with suits that lack merit) against ease of access to the judicial system. In addressing these contradictory aims, the FRCP allows, at numerous points during litigation, the chance for a case to be dismissed (ex- after the complaint, at the end of discovery, and at the end of trial but before a verdict is rendered). This ensures that every case will at least be able to be heard, but not necessarily be given a full trial (thus achieving judicial efficiency without restricting access to the judicial system). The problem with \"requir[ing] that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents\" is that it would undermine the policy aims of the FRCP and create unintended consequences. By forcing both sides to contribute money to both their legal team and their opponents', more frivolous lawsuits would arise and would compromise judicial efficiency. Consider, for example, a very large corporation. By establishing a system whereby they are required to contribute to their opponents' legal claims, opponents are more likely to pursue claims which are trivial and are likely to fail at an early stage of litigation. As an individual who now has less to lose by attempting a suit, it is likely that they will be more inclined to pursue them. And, as \/u\/scottevil110 stated, because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove their case, the costs are disproportionately larger for a plaintiff's case, especially at the early stages of litigation where they must plead a case that survives an initial motion to dismiss. Rather than equalizing the playing field, this contention would swing the pendulum to the other end of the spectrum and place a disproportionate burden on those who must defend themselves. There is nothing equal in the eyes of the law about that, especially before a finding of guilt has been rendered. Practically, this would do little to alter any equality or fairness in the eyes of the law. Just because they must split fees does not necessarily mean that the costs will go down. You even said that deeper-pocketed individuals\/corporations can drag suits on almost indefinitely. If they did, the logical conclusion of this proposal is that both parties would have to share in those costs, which may be prohibitively expensive for someone who is already having trouble affording the litigation. This doesn't protect the 'poor' any better than the current system. Your primary concern appears to be that people without a lot of money cannot litigate cases as well or as completely as those with money (and hence is creates the fundamental miscarriage of justice-inequality between litigants). Lawyers recognize this, and have also come up with solutions to this problem. First, they do pro bono work (i.e. free legal services). These are not all that frequent and do not merit more attention. Second, and more importantly, many lawyers who represent clients with little to no money work on a contingency basis. Thus, if a case is unsuccessful, the client owes no money, and if the case is successful, they take a percentage of the final recovery amount. This eliminates a lot of the rich v. poor dichotomy which you have identified, and allows each case to proceed on fair and equal terms. Lastly, in the United States, the trend has been moving towards the British-style of litigation, wherein the loser pays for the opposing party's legal fees. Coupled with contingency fees, the equality issue is eliminated. Obviously, money is not going to be leaving the legal system anytime soon. And thus far, no one has been able to come up with a single solution which would completely equalize the playing field. But, given the code of civil procedure and the various ways lawyers can collect fees, forcing both sides to share in fees will not equalize the playing field.","human_ref_B":"This can also be addressed using a \"loser pays\" system that has a cap. The loser in a civil lawsuit has to pay the winner's legal bills within a certain cap, like 200% of their own legal bills. That way, the little guy isn't afraid to bring a lawsuit, and the person being sued doesn't have to contribute to his own demise. A bigger problem is in the criminal system. The government has so many resources (Prosecutor, police, etc.), that the only way anyone can get a fair trial is to be wealthy themselves. Thus many people plead to a lesser charge in order to salvage some of their lives, even if they weren't guilty. In that case, I agree with you. The only way to level the playing field is to make the government contribute a much larger percentage of their total prosecution budget into the defense's budget. The problem is that people will complain that it's already so hard to prove somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor's office needs more money than the defense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10084.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"clvi2ud","c_root_id_B":"clv3h38","created_at_utc_A":1415339102,"created_at_utc_B":1415309829,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"At what point does each party decide how much they are willing to spend? I mean, if I get sued and find out that someone is spending 100k on their prosecution team so they also must give 100k for my legal defence-- why would I contribute any money? I could just say I was planning on going at it my own, but now that I have my hands on 100k I might as well hire a lawyer. Do you see what I'm saying? If one side is willing to put money forward, what incentive is there for the other side to as well?","human_ref_B":"You take away free market and competition. If i am the best lawyer out there, why would i charge the same as someone who barely passed the BAR on the 3rd attempt? the only way this would work would be to outlaw private law practices. And have 100% of the attorneys be state employees with the same salary. Perhaps create some levels so rank them. Lawyer I, Lawyer II, Lawyer III. and i guess in a case you must match lawyers of the same rank?? Point being, unfortunately with private practices, you get what you pay for.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29273.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cluy594","c_root_id_B":"clvi2ud","created_at_utc_A":1415301051,"created_at_utc_B":1415339102,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This can also be addressed using a \"loser pays\" system that has a cap. The loser in a civil lawsuit has to pay the winner's legal bills within a certain cap, like 200% of their own legal bills. That way, the little guy isn't afraid to bring a lawsuit, and the person being sued doesn't have to contribute to his own demise. A bigger problem is in the criminal system. The government has so many resources (Prosecutor, police, etc.), that the only way anyone can get a fair trial is to be wealthy themselves. Thus many people plead to a lesser charge in order to salvage some of their lives, even if they weren't guilty. In that case, I agree with you. The only way to level the playing field is to make the government contribute a much larger percentage of their total prosecution budget into the defense's budget. The problem is that people will complain that it's already so hard to prove somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor's office needs more money than the defense.","human_ref_B":"At what point does each party decide how much they are willing to spend? I mean, if I get sued and find out that someone is spending 100k on their prosecution team so they also must give 100k for my legal defence-- why would I contribute any money? I could just say I was planning on going at it my own, but now that I have my hands on 100k I might as well hire a lawyer. Do you see what I'm saying? If one side is willing to put money forward, what incentive is there for the other side to as well?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38051.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"2lhzxl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Change my view thatThe fact that rich people can afford better\/more lawyers than poor people is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to combat this problem, each side in a legal battle should be forced to contribute equal money to their own counsel and their opponents counsel. There are two parts to this view, and I will award deltas if you can change either of them. The first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. When I see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business can't afford to fight back, I am sickened. Equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law. The second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents. I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing I can come up with. Other attempts to bring equality to courts that I've seen all fall short somewhere. The loser paying the winner's legal fees doesn't help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up. Preventing money from entering the courts in the first place doesn't work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer's time to analyse. Having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems I brought up earlier. In the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk-driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state's case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities aren't using their own money anymore. Essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing. One note: Don't try to change my view that this can't be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality. I believe that equality is more important than freedom and I'm totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"clvi2ud","c_root_id_B":"clvc2q0","created_at_utc_A":1415339102,"created_at_utc_B":1415326115,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"At what point does each party decide how much they are willing to spend? I mean, if I get sued and find out that someone is spending 100k on their prosecution team so they also must give 100k for my legal defence-- why would I contribute any money? I could just say I was planning on going at it my own, but now that I have my hands on 100k I might as well hire a lawyer. Do you see what I'm saying? If one side is willing to put money forward, what incentive is there for the other side to as well?","human_ref_B":"To your second point, both sides paying equally for all lawyers involved, it would do nothing to stop the inequality for several reasons. * The richer side will now end up paying even less for their lawyer, thus allowing them to get a more expensive, and theoretically better, lawyer for the same amount of money. * The poor side may not be able to pay the expenses for the richer side's lawyer. They are still poor, and by requiring them to cover half of the expenses for an ultra-high end lawyer it would both discourage them from going to court, and make them \"bleed out\" faster before they simply cannot continue to pay no matter what. * What if one party decides to represent themselves, for whatever reason. Do you feel that it is still justified for them to have to pay for half of the other side's lawyer?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12987.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmv6tuy","c_root_id_B":"hmv7u16","created_at_utc_A":1638403769,"created_at_utc_B":1638404211,"score_A":36,"score_B":94,"human_ref_A":"We do care that animals feel pain, and people who torture dogs or cats or do horrific things to animals often get harshly punished for it. Some people are even vegetarians or vegans, saying that we shouldn't kill animals for food. As such, since these are common and popular values, why shouldn't the pain of the fetus matter to the law? Why should fetuses be valued lower than animals? Pain is bad, and we try to stop it for animals, and many people also do so for fetuses.","human_ref_B":"> We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons What do you mean? We absolutely do. When we euthanize animals, its often to prevent unnecessary suffering, and when we kill them for meat or other animal byproducts we usually aim to do so in a way that minimizes suffering.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":442.0,"score_ratio":2.6111111111} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmv7u16","c_root_id_B":"hmv7b1n","created_at_utc_A":1638404211,"created_at_utc_B":1638403982,"score_A":94,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"> We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons What do you mean? We absolutely do. When we euthanize animals, its often to prevent unnecessary suffering, and when we kill them for meat or other animal byproducts we usually aim to do so in a way that minimizes suffering.","human_ref_B":"If the new scientific consensus was that fetuses felt an infinite amount of pain, would it matter then? > We don't care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons I care.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":229.0,"score_ratio":7.2307692308} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmv7b1n","c_root_id_B":"hmvce9v","created_at_utc_A":1638403982,"created_at_utc_B":1638406218,"score_A":13,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"If the new scientific consensus was that fetuses felt an infinite amount of pain, would it matter then? > We don't care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons I care.","human_ref_B":"You are making a fallacy of equating something being of a lessor priority with it being irrelevant. Something can be less important than something else, but still have some degree of importance itself. The two are not mutually exclusive. For example, when getting vaccinated, there is a risk I\u2019ll get mildly sick. I consider that less important than protecting myself and others from COVID, but it STILL MATTERS that I could get mildly sick, and that risk has to be taken into consideration. You can\u2019t say something doesn\u2019t matter simply because you think something else matters more. You have to evaluate the importance of the thing independently.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2236.0,"score_ratio":1.6153846154} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmwk8p1","c_root_id_B":"hmwgqvz","created_at_utc_A":1638427913,"created_at_utc_B":1638425581,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The most important question is at what point a developing human should be given legal standing, and therefore legal rights, as a human being. I agree that feeling pain is not exactly the right question, personhood is. In this case, the ability to feel pain is being used as an indicator of personhood.","human_ref_B":"So a few things here, my mother was adopted after a teenage pregnancy, so that leaves me biased. I also flip flop between the belief that the main purpose of people is to fuck and have kids. Personally I\u2019m thankful my mom was adopted and not aborted as I would not exist. The thing to remember is that babies at the end of the day aren\u2019t fully human beings yet, but they are potential human beings. Its why a pedophile seems worse to us than someone who rapes adults, why Casey Anthony seems worse than someone who killed their wife. Its not a fully fledged human, which means that baby could become many things, the path is pretty much laid out for an adult. The real crux though, and the main gripe I have is that I see you leaning into the blank slate theory, which a lot of people seems to lean towards on here. That humans start out basically as blank slates and society, what their parents do to them, and their life experiences paints that slate into their personality. Thus killing throwing away the blank slate really means nothing was lost. This theory is wrong, there\u2019s a lot more than to it than that and anyone that goes into that debate will tell you that. Look I\u2019ll be honest, I don\u2019t really see you giving a delta to anyone on this one if you haven\u2019t already. Really I just want you to know this problem is beyond all our comprehensions, the fact is I don\u2019t think we\u2019ll ever have an answer on the ethicality of abortion, because it deals with vague topics only touched by religions (because they try to explain everything no matter how wrong or right they may be). But its so politicized that we have to give an answer, and for me is that it just plain doesn\u2019t feel right to me unless that baby is going to instantly die when it comes out of the womb(or is expected to die in the womb) or the mother\u2019s life is threatened. Just because the baby came at the wrong time when its expected to be perfectly healthy just isn\u2019t a good enough excuse for me. A shitty life is a lot better than no life at all. A lot of the defenses just eek of depression and nihlism, like \u201cwhat world are they coming into, their lives will suck, they\u2019ll kill the environment, the world\u2019s ending anyways, they would just live to suffer\u201d, like you can tell the future and how your potential child will feel. It just bothers me to no end. Am I right, the fuck if I know, but that\u2019s what I feel is right, and you can disagree wholeheartedly and be completely right too.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2332.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmvtvo7","c_root_id_B":"hmwk8p1","created_at_utc_A":1638413778,"created_at_utc_B":1638427913,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. What about if something is horribly wrong with the baby and it won't survive the pregnancy or very long after birth? Often these problems aren't picked up until after 20 weeks. Should a pregnant woman be forced to have the baby die in her womb because abortion isn't available *after* the problem is found? Should she be forced undergo all the dangers associated with pregnancy and the dangers of birthing a baby that is going to immediately die? Edit\/added: And should the baby, which *feels* after 20 weeks, possibly be forced to be subjected to excruciating suffering from it's birth and abnormalities? We don't know if being birthed is painful to a baby. And many abnormalities might be horribly painful. So forced both the mother and baby to have danger and pain if catastrophic issues are found *after* twenty weeks?","human_ref_B":"The most important question is at what point a developing human should be given legal standing, and therefore legal rights, as a human being. I agree that feeling pain is not exactly the right question, personhood is. In this case, the ability to feel pain is being used as an indicator of personhood.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14135.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmwk8p1","c_root_id_B":"hmwhqhz","created_at_utc_A":1638427913,"created_at_utc_B":1638426226,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The most important question is at what point a developing human should be given legal standing, and therefore legal rights, as a human being. I agree that feeling pain is not exactly the right question, personhood is. In this case, the ability to feel pain is being used as an indicator of personhood.","human_ref_B":"Take a pair of conjoined twins. Let\u2019s say one is parasitic to the other and developmentally disabled (\u201cless sentient\u201d if you will, than the other twin). Presume we know that in less than a year, the twins will detach spontaneously with relatively low risk of complications. After that, parasitic twin will become developmentally normal. Eventually will probably become a productive member of society. Before that though, the healthy sibling wants to surgically remove his parasitic twin who will certainly die. Do we let the healthier sibling cut off his twin?If we were debating that, would the potential for severe pain in the parasitic twin matter?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1687.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmw3fi5","c_root_id_B":"hmwk8p1","created_at_utc_A":1638418170,"created_at_utc_B":1638427913,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"You seem to argue regarding pain until right at the end when you mention sentience. Which one is it?","human_ref_B":"The most important question is at what point a developing human should be given legal standing, and therefore legal rights, as a human being. I agree that feeling pain is not exactly the right question, personhood is. In this case, the ability to feel pain is being used as an indicator of personhood.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9743.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmvtvo7","c_root_id_B":"hmwgqvz","created_at_utc_A":1638413778,"created_at_utc_B":1638425581,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. What about if something is horribly wrong with the baby and it won't survive the pregnancy or very long after birth? Often these problems aren't picked up until after 20 weeks. Should a pregnant woman be forced to have the baby die in her womb because abortion isn't available *after* the problem is found? Should she be forced undergo all the dangers associated with pregnancy and the dangers of birthing a baby that is going to immediately die? Edit\/added: And should the baby, which *feels* after 20 weeks, possibly be forced to be subjected to excruciating suffering from it's birth and abnormalities? We don't know if being birthed is painful to a baby. And many abnormalities might be horribly painful. So forced both the mother and baby to have danger and pain if catastrophic issues are found *after* twenty weeks?","human_ref_B":"So a few things here, my mother was adopted after a teenage pregnancy, so that leaves me biased. I also flip flop between the belief that the main purpose of people is to fuck and have kids. Personally I\u2019m thankful my mom was adopted and not aborted as I would not exist. The thing to remember is that babies at the end of the day aren\u2019t fully human beings yet, but they are potential human beings. Its why a pedophile seems worse to us than someone who rapes adults, why Casey Anthony seems worse than someone who killed their wife. Its not a fully fledged human, which means that baby could become many things, the path is pretty much laid out for an adult. The real crux though, and the main gripe I have is that I see you leaning into the blank slate theory, which a lot of people seems to lean towards on here. That humans start out basically as blank slates and society, what their parents do to them, and their life experiences paints that slate into their personality. Thus killing throwing away the blank slate really means nothing was lost. This theory is wrong, there\u2019s a lot more than to it than that and anyone that goes into that debate will tell you that. Look I\u2019ll be honest, I don\u2019t really see you giving a delta to anyone on this one if you haven\u2019t already. Really I just want you to know this problem is beyond all our comprehensions, the fact is I don\u2019t think we\u2019ll ever have an answer on the ethicality of abortion, because it deals with vague topics only touched by religions (because they try to explain everything no matter how wrong or right they may be). But its so politicized that we have to give an answer, and for me is that it just plain doesn\u2019t feel right to me unless that baby is going to instantly die when it comes out of the womb(or is expected to die in the womb) or the mother\u2019s life is threatened. Just because the baby came at the wrong time when its expected to be perfectly healthy just isn\u2019t a good enough excuse for me. A shitty life is a lot better than no life at all. A lot of the defenses just eek of depression and nihlism, like \u201cwhat world are they coming into, their lives will suck, they\u2019ll kill the environment, the world\u2019s ending anyways, they would just live to suffer\u201d, like you can tell the future and how your potential child will feel. It just bothers me to no end. Am I right, the fuck if I know, but that\u2019s what I feel is right, and you can disagree wholeheartedly and be completely right too.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11803.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmw3fi5","c_root_id_B":"hmwgqvz","created_at_utc_A":1638418170,"created_at_utc_B":1638425581,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"You seem to argue regarding pain until right at the end when you mention sentience. Which one is it?","human_ref_B":"So a few things here, my mother was adopted after a teenage pregnancy, so that leaves me biased. I also flip flop between the belief that the main purpose of people is to fuck and have kids. Personally I\u2019m thankful my mom was adopted and not aborted as I would not exist. The thing to remember is that babies at the end of the day aren\u2019t fully human beings yet, but they are potential human beings. Its why a pedophile seems worse to us than someone who rapes adults, why Casey Anthony seems worse than someone who killed their wife. Its not a fully fledged human, which means that baby could become many things, the path is pretty much laid out for an adult. The real crux though, and the main gripe I have is that I see you leaning into the blank slate theory, which a lot of people seems to lean towards on here. That humans start out basically as blank slates and society, what their parents do to them, and their life experiences paints that slate into their personality. Thus killing throwing away the blank slate really means nothing was lost. This theory is wrong, there\u2019s a lot more than to it than that and anyone that goes into that debate will tell you that. Look I\u2019ll be honest, I don\u2019t really see you giving a delta to anyone on this one if you haven\u2019t already. Really I just want you to know this problem is beyond all our comprehensions, the fact is I don\u2019t think we\u2019ll ever have an answer on the ethicality of abortion, because it deals with vague topics only touched by religions (because they try to explain everything no matter how wrong or right they may be). But its so politicized that we have to give an answer, and for me is that it just plain doesn\u2019t feel right to me unless that baby is going to instantly die when it comes out of the womb(or is expected to die in the womb) or the mother\u2019s life is threatened. Just because the baby came at the wrong time when its expected to be perfectly healthy just isn\u2019t a good enough excuse for me. A shitty life is a lot better than no life at all. A lot of the defenses just eek of depression and nihlism, like \u201cwhat world are they coming into, their lives will suck, they\u2019ll kill the environment, the world\u2019s ending anyways, they would just live to suffer\u201d, like you can tell the future and how your potential child will feel. It just bothers me to no end. Am I right, the fuck if I know, but that\u2019s what I feel is right, and you can disagree wholeheartedly and be completely right too.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7411.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmwrk9y","c_root_id_B":"hmwhqhz","created_at_utc_A":1638433509,"created_at_utc_B":1638426226,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In your post you say both that the fetus' pain \"should have no bearing\" and \"should not be a priority\" - which is it? The distinction is a nuance of your argument and it would help me in preparing more thoughts on this if you could let me know which one is your view, thanks","human_ref_B":"Take a pair of conjoined twins. Let\u2019s say one is parasitic to the other and developmentally disabled (\u201cless sentient\u201d if you will, than the other twin). Presume we know that in less than a year, the twins will detach spontaneously with relatively low risk of complications. After that, parasitic twin will become developmentally normal. Eventually will probably become a productive member of society. Before that though, the healthy sibling wants to surgically remove his parasitic twin who will certainly die. Do we let the healthier sibling cut off his twin?If we were debating that, would the potential for severe pain in the parasitic twin matter?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7283.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmw3fi5","c_root_id_B":"hmwrk9y","created_at_utc_A":1638418170,"created_at_utc_B":1638433509,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You seem to argue regarding pain until right at the end when you mention sentience. Which one is it?","human_ref_B":"In your post you say both that the fetus' pain \"should have no bearing\" and \"should not be a priority\" - which is it? The distinction is a nuance of your argument and it would help me in preparing more thoughts on this if you could let me know which one is your view, thanks","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15339.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmw3fi5","c_root_id_B":"hmwhqhz","created_at_utc_A":1638418170,"created_at_utc_B":1638426226,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You seem to argue regarding pain until right at the end when you mention sentience. Which one is it?","human_ref_B":"Take a pair of conjoined twins. Let\u2019s say one is parasitic to the other and developmentally disabled (\u201cless sentient\u201d if you will, than the other twin). Presume we know that in less than a year, the twins will detach spontaneously with relatively low risk of complications. After that, parasitic twin will become developmentally normal. Eventually will probably become a productive member of society. Before that though, the healthy sibling wants to surgically remove his parasitic twin who will certainly die. Do we let the healthier sibling cut off his twin?If we were debating that, would the potential for severe pain in the parasitic twin matter?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8056.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"r6td3s","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: it doesn\u2019t matter whether a fetus can feel pain, and that should have no bearing on abortion policy and law. Let me make it known that I am referring to first and second trimester abortions here. I do not support third trimester abortions except to prevent unforeseen medical complications to the mother. It does not matter whether a fetus has a heartbeat or can feel pain. Pregnant women feel pain due to their pregnancy along with the potential for countless medical issues caused by pregnancy. Pregnancy-related deaths and permanent health complications still occur which indicate pregnancy is risky. Pregnancy can occur even if a woman is on birth control or a man uses a condom. It is not always a sign of irresponsibility, and in the instances where it is, this is an example of how we cannot take rights away from irresponsible people without penalizing people who genuinely NEED abortions for financial or health reasons. Whether the fetus feels pain is completely irrelevant and should not be a priority. We don\u2019t care when animals feel pain when we kill them for any number of reasons so the idea that somehow this is about preventing pain is a cover for a more sinister agenda. Even a fetus is alive it is nowhere near as sentient as a living breathing woman and if priority is to be given to one or the other it must go to the mother.","c_root_id_A":"hmwxia2","c_root_id_B":"hmw3fi5","created_at_utc_A":1638438572,"created_at_utc_B":1638418170,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't know how to tell you this but if abortion were to become proven to be inhumane, that's absolutely important. The entire pro choice argument is based on preserving human rights. No one should have the right to do that to another being on a whim.","human_ref_B":"You seem to argue regarding pain until right at the end when you mention sentience. Which one is it?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20402.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"nx1a8o","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Cmv: Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Me and my GF going to a heated debate about what we consider rape and I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rate since the man did not consent to that and she is opening him up to unwanted child birth and STDs. She just thinks that is wrong and sabotage but I think it is be a form of rap what do you guys think about that and do you think there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder? I don't think anything is clean cut or just black and white but in the gray area. If the sexual act is non-consensual and harms the participant that didn't agree to the act, it is rape point blank!","c_root_id_A":"h1cahky","c_root_id_B":"h1c9fyk","created_at_utc_A":1623367546,"created_at_utc_B":1623367013,"score_A":35,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Legally speaking, the scale of degrees kind of exists in the distinction of rape and sexual assault, where rape is usually defined very narrowly as penile\/vaginal intercourse without consent and pretty much everything else is sexual assault.\u00a0 In most cases, birth control sabotage does not fall under rape because the sex is usually consensual, even if that consent is obtained fraudulently.\u00a0 The risk of STDs can make birth control sabotage an instance of sexual assault, but it is more common for it to be prosecuted as personal injury and\/or fraud.","human_ref_B":"Rape = hey you wanna have sex? No? let\u2019s have sex now. Or the short version: were having sex now I dont care what you want While the hole poking is uncool and unwanted I dont consider it rape. > Definition: Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent. I dont see room for hole poking interpretations. I think your hole poking issue is sexual assault: > Sexual assault is an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or *coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.* Since there is sexual assault and rape, I think there already are \u201cdifferent forms\/levels of rape\u201d.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":533.0,"score_ratio":2.6923076923} {"post_id":"nx1a8o","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Cmv: Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Me and my GF going to a heated debate about what we consider rape and I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rate since the man did not consent to that and she is opening him up to unwanted child birth and STDs. She just thinks that is wrong and sabotage but I think it is be a form of rap what do you guys think about that and do you think there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder? I don't think anything is clean cut or just black and white but in the gray area. If the sexual act is non-consensual and harms the participant that didn't agree to the act, it is rape point blank!","c_root_id_A":"h1cahky","c_root_id_B":"h1c93ir","created_at_utc_A":1623367546,"created_at_utc_B":1623366836,"score_A":35,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Legally speaking, the scale of degrees kind of exists in the distinction of rape and sexual assault, where rape is usually defined very narrowly as penile\/vaginal intercourse without consent and pretty much everything else is sexual assault.\u00a0 In most cases, birth control sabotage does not fall under rape because the sex is usually consensual, even if that consent is obtained fraudulently.\u00a0 The risk of STDs can make birth control sabotage an instance of sexual assault, but it is more common for it to be prosecuted as personal injury and\/or fraud.","human_ref_B":"Consent to pregnancy and consent to sex are two entirely different concepts, however if the woman makes the statement \"I only consented to have sex with you if you used a condom so I don't get pregnant\" and the man willing disregarded the spirit of her request then clearly he does not have consensual sex, therefore its just flat our rape. In other words, people are allowed to give conditional consent to sex, and if their partners do not meat these conditions it is rape.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":710.0,"score_ratio":8.75} {"post_id":"nx1a8o","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Cmv: Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Me and my GF going to a heated debate about what we consider rape and I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rate since the man did not consent to that and she is opening him up to unwanted child birth and STDs. She just thinks that is wrong and sabotage but I think it is be a form of rap what do you guys think about that and do you think there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder? I don't think anything is clean cut or just black and white but in the gray area. If the sexual act is non-consensual and harms the participant that didn't agree to the act, it is rape point blank!","c_root_id_A":"h1c93ir","c_root_id_B":"h1c9fyk","created_at_utc_A":1623366836,"created_at_utc_B":1623367013,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Consent to pregnancy and consent to sex are two entirely different concepts, however if the woman makes the statement \"I only consented to have sex with you if you used a condom so I don't get pregnant\" and the man willing disregarded the spirit of her request then clearly he does not have consensual sex, therefore its just flat our rape. In other words, people are allowed to give conditional consent to sex, and if their partners do not meat these conditions it is rape.","human_ref_B":"Rape = hey you wanna have sex? No? let\u2019s have sex now. Or the short version: were having sex now I dont care what you want While the hole poking is uncool and unwanted I dont consider it rape. > Definition: Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent. I dont see room for hole poking interpretations. I think your hole poking issue is sexual assault: > Sexual assault is an act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or *coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.* Since there is sexual assault and rape, I think there already are \u201cdifferent forms\/levels of rape\u201d.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":177.0,"score_ratio":3.25} {"post_id":"nx1a8o","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Cmv: Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Me and my GF going to a heated debate about what we consider rape and I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rate since the man did not consent to that and she is opening him up to unwanted child birth and STDs. She just thinks that is wrong and sabotage but I think it is be a form of rap what do you guys think about that and do you think there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder? I don't think anything is clean cut or just black and white but in the gray area. If the sexual act is non-consensual and harms the participant that didn't agree to the act, it is rape point blank!","c_root_id_A":"h1dok4s","c_root_id_B":"h1c93ir","created_at_utc_A":1623398109,"created_at_utc_B":1623366836,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Logically that seems a bit off: it would mean that a third person could potentially turn consenting sex between two people into rape by poking a hole in their condom.","human_ref_B":"Consent to pregnancy and consent to sex are two entirely different concepts, however if the woman makes the statement \"I only consented to have sex with you if you used a condom so I don't get pregnant\" and the man willing disregarded the spirit of her request then clearly he does not have consensual sex, therefore its just flat our rape. In other words, people are allowed to give conditional consent to sex, and if their partners do not meat these conditions it is rape.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31273.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"nx1a8o","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Cmv: Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Me and my GF going to a heated debate about what we consider rape and I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rate since the man did not consent to that and she is opening him up to unwanted child birth and STDs. She just thinks that is wrong and sabotage but I think it is be a form of rap what do you guys think about that and do you think there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder? I don't think anything is clean cut or just black and white but in the gray area. If the sexual act is non-consensual and harms the participant that didn't agree to the act, it is rape point blank!","c_root_id_A":"h1dok4s","c_root_id_B":"h1cfjcq","created_at_utc_A":1623398109,"created_at_utc_B":1623370178,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Logically that seems a bit off: it would mean that a third person could potentially turn consenting sex between two people into rape by poking a hole in their condom.","human_ref_B":"there are different degrees of sexual assault.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27931.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"nx1a8o","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Cmv: Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Me and my GF going to a heated debate about what we consider rape and I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rate since the man did not consent to that and she is opening him up to unwanted child birth and STDs. She just thinks that is wrong and sabotage but I think it is be a form of rap what do you guys think about that and do you think there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder? I don't think anything is clean cut or just black and white but in the gray area. If the sexual act is non-consensual and harms the participant that didn't agree to the act, it is rape point blank!","c_root_id_A":"h1cakpa","c_root_id_B":"h1dok4s","created_at_utc_A":1623367591,"created_at_utc_B":1623398109,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"> I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rape I mean, you're just wrong. Rape is a legal concept. There is no jurisdiction in the world where tampering with a condom is deemed the rape of a man.","human_ref_B":"> Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Logically that seems a bit off: it would mean that a third person could potentially turn consenting sex between two people into rape by poking a hole in their condom.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30518.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"nx1a8o","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Cmv: Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Me and my GF going to a heated debate about what we consider rape and I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rate since the man did not consent to that and she is opening him up to unwanted child birth and STDs. She just thinks that is wrong and sabotage but I think it is be a form of rap what do you guys think about that and do you think there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder? I don't think anything is clean cut or just black and white but in the gray area. If the sexual act is non-consensual and harms the participant that didn't agree to the act, it is rape point blank!","c_root_id_A":"h1cgcjn","c_root_id_B":"h1dok4s","created_at_utc_A":1623370599,"created_at_utc_B":1623398109,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"What does the case law say? It's a crime for sure, but which one?","human_ref_B":"> Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Logically that seems a bit off: it would mean that a third person could potentially turn consenting sex between two people into rape by poking a hole in their condom.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27510.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"nx1a8o","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Cmv: Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Me and my GF going to a heated debate about what we consider rape and I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rate since the man did not consent to that and she is opening him up to unwanted child birth and STDs. She just thinks that is wrong and sabotage but I think it is be a form of rap what do you guys think about that and do you think there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder? I don't think anything is clean cut or just black and white but in the gray area. If the sexual act is non-consensual and harms the participant that didn't agree to the act, it is rape point blank!","c_root_id_A":"h1dcvwk","c_root_id_B":"h1dok4s","created_at_utc_A":1623388758,"created_at_utc_B":1623398109,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"What crime would it be, if thrid person does it? Rape of both?","human_ref_B":"> Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Logically that seems a bit off: it would mean that a third person could potentially turn consenting sex between two people into rape by poking a hole in their condom.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9351.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"nx1a8o","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Cmv: Poking a hole in a condom is considered rape and there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder! Me and my GF going to a heated debate about what we consider rape and I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rate since the man did not consent to that and she is opening him up to unwanted child birth and STDs. She just thinks that is wrong and sabotage but I think it is be a form of rap what do you guys think about that and do you think there should be different degrees of rape just like there are murder? I don't think anything is clean cut or just black and white but in the gray area. If the sexual act is non-consensual and harms the participant that didn't agree to the act, it is rape point blank!","c_root_id_A":"h1cakpa","c_root_id_B":"h1cfjcq","created_at_utc_A":1623367591,"created_at_utc_B":1623370178,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> I considered a woman poking a hole into a man's condom to be rape I mean, you're just wrong. Rape is a legal concept. There is no jurisdiction in the world where tampering with a condom is deemed the rape of a man.","human_ref_B":"there are different degrees of sexual assault.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2587.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"4nvpyc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The United States is doomed to be politically dysfunctional because of our diversity; we have such a wide range of viewpoints that is we will never commit to any significant changes on a national scale. Homogeneous countries like Japan have been able to completely remove guns from their country and their culture, and as a result they have a single-digit number of firearm homicides per year. Australia had a similar programs to massively reduce guns in their country, and their firearm homicide rate has declined by 50% in the last couple of decades. If anyone suggested that in the United States, they would be crucified by the NRA. We can't even agree on a ban on assault weapons, let alone things like rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Meanwhile we have just had our 18th mass shooting in the last 8 years, yet our national policy on guns hasn't changed significantly. This is just an example, but it drives home the point that the United States has such a wide range of viewpoints and political opinions that we cannot seem to move the country much in any given direction. Our immigration system remains dysfunctional because we can't agree on any significant action to change the system. Abortion is incredibly difficult in many states despite it being legal because anti-abortion people restrict access to abortion in every legal way they can. Our government has a massive deficit because the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts and the Republicans won't agree to tax increases. Whenever the country tries to enact a specific policy, people on the other side of the issue dig in their heels and scream at the top of their lungs. In the current age of political polarization, the problem will only get worse as the country becomes more diverse and less homogenous. This leaves me incredibly pessimistic about the ability of the national government to effect significant change. I don't know if ceding more control to the states will improve things at all. Basically, I feel that most of our problems will go unfixed because we will not commit to a strong solution on either side of the political aisle. When the Democrats take power, the Republicans prevent them from enacting most of their desired policies, and vice versa. As a result we are doomed to attempt halfhearted middle-of-the-road solutions that try to make everybody happy but usually leave nobody happy. Think early hybrids: they were inefficient as gasoline cars because they had to carry around a heavy battery, and they were inefficient as electric cars because they had to carry a heavy fuel tank and engine. So that's why I think the U.S. political system is going to be inefficient and dysfunctional for the foreseeable future. Please let me know whether you think any part of this has any merit, and which parts you disagree with if you disagree.","c_root_id_A":"d47bmq9","c_root_id_B":"d47cvm7","created_at_utc_A":1465828064,"created_at_utc_B":1465829836,"score_A":20,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"I think you might be underestimating the diversity in Australia. About 30% of the population are immigrants.","human_ref_B":"Okay, a few things here. Australia has a far higher percentage of foreign-born citizens than the United States. As of 2010, Australia had 26.3% immigrants while as of 2013, the US had 13% immigrants. So by your argument Australia should be less likely to pass the legislation you want, rather than more. What the US has that Australia doesn't is the gun lobby. The NRA is an organized body with five million members in the US who behave as a voting block - that's five million votes you can gain or lose depending on your legislation. They're also very well-funded by the firearms industry, and they exist in a political system that lobbying bodies thrive in. When congress runs for election every two years, they are always looking for donations. So I'd argue all of this is a combination of the very pro-gun culture of the US (which baffles me as a Canadian), and a political system that is a perfect environment for a lobbying group to succeed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1772.0,"score_ratio":2.15} {"post_id":"4nvpyc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The United States is doomed to be politically dysfunctional because of our diversity; we have such a wide range of viewpoints that is we will never commit to any significant changes on a national scale. Homogeneous countries like Japan have been able to completely remove guns from their country and their culture, and as a result they have a single-digit number of firearm homicides per year. Australia had a similar programs to massively reduce guns in their country, and their firearm homicide rate has declined by 50% in the last couple of decades. If anyone suggested that in the United States, they would be crucified by the NRA. We can't even agree on a ban on assault weapons, let alone things like rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Meanwhile we have just had our 18th mass shooting in the last 8 years, yet our national policy on guns hasn't changed significantly. This is just an example, but it drives home the point that the United States has such a wide range of viewpoints and political opinions that we cannot seem to move the country much in any given direction. Our immigration system remains dysfunctional because we can't agree on any significant action to change the system. Abortion is incredibly difficult in many states despite it being legal because anti-abortion people restrict access to abortion in every legal way they can. Our government has a massive deficit because the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts and the Republicans won't agree to tax increases. Whenever the country tries to enact a specific policy, people on the other side of the issue dig in their heels and scream at the top of their lungs. In the current age of political polarization, the problem will only get worse as the country becomes more diverse and less homogenous. This leaves me incredibly pessimistic about the ability of the national government to effect significant change. I don't know if ceding more control to the states will improve things at all. Basically, I feel that most of our problems will go unfixed because we will not commit to a strong solution on either side of the political aisle. When the Democrats take power, the Republicans prevent them from enacting most of their desired policies, and vice versa. As a result we are doomed to attempt halfhearted middle-of-the-road solutions that try to make everybody happy but usually leave nobody happy. Think early hybrids: they were inefficient as gasoline cars because they had to carry around a heavy battery, and they were inefficient as electric cars because they had to carry a heavy fuel tank and engine. So that's why I think the U.S. political system is going to be inefficient and dysfunctional for the foreseeable future. Please let me know whether you think any part of this has any merit, and which parts you disagree with if you disagree.","c_root_id_A":"d47bmq9","c_root_id_B":"d47g7d9","created_at_utc_A":1465828064,"created_at_utc_B":1465834280,"score_A":20,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"I think you might be underestimating the diversity in Australia. About 30% of the population are immigrants.","human_ref_B":">This is just an example, but it drives home the point that the United States has such a wide range of viewpoints and political opinions that we cannot seem to move the country much in any given direction. And yet, those of us who have been around for a while can look back and see *significant* social and political change over the course of our lives. Not all of it positive, and not all of it all at once. But I think you're underestimating how much things have changed. I'm only 39. Just since I was first becoming a teenager in the late 1980s \/ early 1990s, there have been a lot of significant changes. Probably most obvious is the way in which LGBT people are treated, viewed, portrayed, and just plain recognized and acknowledged in American society. For a real wake up, go ask any LGBT person who has been around since the 1970s or 1960s if things have changed in this country. Just as an example, Eddie Murphy did a heavily promoted and comedy special on HBO in the early 1980s that is still widely regarded as very influential, and that helped launch his post-SNL career. That routine included a long bit specifically on \"fags\" (*Delirious*). That bit would *never* be considered acceptable today. >Whenever the country tries to enact a specific policy, people on the other side of the issue dig in their heels and scream at the top of their lungs. In the current age of political polarization, the problem will only get worse as the country becomes more diverse and less homogenous. Social and political change is not a fast or an easy process in a diverse society. But social and political change is *never* easy, and consensus and compromise take time. The US today is a very different place than it was 30 years ago, or 50 years ago. Just because you don't see monolithic laws being passed with no opposition, don't assume that somehow that makes us dysfunctional. I'd rather there was a healthy debate on most issues (not all, but most ^1) rather than just wholesale making a change. Different viewpoints, even ones you don't agree with, are a benefit, not a problem, because they often bring up important points (either intentionally or accidentally) that those arguing on the other side of an issue never thought of. ^1 Peoples' civil rights are not up for debate. Once we acknowledge that one group of people in our society have a right or set of rights, those rights should be automatically extended to everyone else in that society.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6216.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"4nvpyc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The United States is doomed to be politically dysfunctional because of our diversity; we have such a wide range of viewpoints that is we will never commit to any significant changes on a national scale. Homogeneous countries like Japan have been able to completely remove guns from their country and their culture, and as a result they have a single-digit number of firearm homicides per year. Australia had a similar programs to massively reduce guns in their country, and their firearm homicide rate has declined by 50% in the last couple of decades. If anyone suggested that in the United States, they would be crucified by the NRA. We can't even agree on a ban on assault weapons, let alone things like rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Meanwhile we have just had our 18th mass shooting in the last 8 years, yet our national policy on guns hasn't changed significantly. This is just an example, but it drives home the point that the United States has such a wide range of viewpoints and political opinions that we cannot seem to move the country much in any given direction. Our immigration system remains dysfunctional because we can't agree on any significant action to change the system. Abortion is incredibly difficult in many states despite it being legal because anti-abortion people restrict access to abortion in every legal way they can. Our government has a massive deficit because the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts and the Republicans won't agree to tax increases. Whenever the country tries to enact a specific policy, people on the other side of the issue dig in their heels and scream at the top of their lungs. In the current age of political polarization, the problem will only get worse as the country becomes more diverse and less homogenous. This leaves me incredibly pessimistic about the ability of the national government to effect significant change. I don't know if ceding more control to the states will improve things at all. Basically, I feel that most of our problems will go unfixed because we will not commit to a strong solution on either side of the political aisle. When the Democrats take power, the Republicans prevent them from enacting most of their desired policies, and vice versa. As a result we are doomed to attempt halfhearted middle-of-the-road solutions that try to make everybody happy but usually leave nobody happy. Think early hybrids: they were inefficient as gasoline cars because they had to carry around a heavy battery, and they were inefficient as electric cars because they had to carry a heavy fuel tank and engine. So that's why I think the U.S. political system is going to be inefficient and dysfunctional for the foreseeable future. Please let me know whether you think any part of this has any merit, and which parts you disagree with if you disagree.","c_root_id_A":"d47g7d9","c_root_id_B":"d47cwxf","created_at_utc_A":1465834280,"created_at_utc_B":1465829884,"score_A":25,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":">This is just an example, but it drives home the point that the United States has such a wide range of viewpoints and political opinions that we cannot seem to move the country much in any given direction. And yet, those of us who have been around for a while can look back and see *significant* social and political change over the course of our lives. Not all of it positive, and not all of it all at once. But I think you're underestimating how much things have changed. I'm only 39. Just since I was first becoming a teenager in the late 1980s \/ early 1990s, there have been a lot of significant changes. Probably most obvious is the way in which LGBT people are treated, viewed, portrayed, and just plain recognized and acknowledged in American society. For a real wake up, go ask any LGBT person who has been around since the 1970s or 1960s if things have changed in this country. Just as an example, Eddie Murphy did a heavily promoted and comedy special on HBO in the early 1980s that is still widely regarded as very influential, and that helped launch his post-SNL career. That routine included a long bit specifically on \"fags\" (*Delirious*). That bit would *never* be considered acceptable today. >Whenever the country tries to enact a specific policy, people on the other side of the issue dig in their heels and scream at the top of their lungs. In the current age of political polarization, the problem will only get worse as the country becomes more diverse and less homogenous. Social and political change is not a fast or an easy process in a diverse society. But social and political change is *never* easy, and consensus and compromise take time. The US today is a very different place than it was 30 years ago, or 50 years ago. Just because you don't see monolithic laws being passed with no opposition, don't assume that somehow that makes us dysfunctional. I'd rather there was a healthy debate on most issues (not all, but most ^1) rather than just wholesale making a change. Different viewpoints, even ones you don't agree with, are a benefit, not a problem, because they often bring up important points (either intentionally or accidentally) that those arguing on the other side of an issue never thought of. ^1 Peoples' civil rights are not up for debate. Once we acknowledge that one group of people in our society have a right or set of rights, those rights should be automatically extended to everyone else in that society.","human_ref_B":"In Japan, it's not like gun control was some great act of national unity. Strict gun (and sword) control laws in the name of preventing rebellions and enforcing the social caste system go back all the way to the 1600s. After WWII, the Allied occupation further disarmed the population. It's pretty easy to come to a national consensus on guns when you've had 400 solid years of gun control enforced by military governments.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4396.0,"score_ratio":1.3888888889} {"post_id":"4nvpyc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The United States is doomed to be politically dysfunctional because of our diversity; we have such a wide range of viewpoints that is we will never commit to any significant changes on a national scale. Homogeneous countries like Japan have been able to completely remove guns from their country and their culture, and as a result they have a single-digit number of firearm homicides per year. Australia had a similar programs to massively reduce guns in their country, and their firearm homicide rate has declined by 50% in the last couple of decades. If anyone suggested that in the United States, they would be crucified by the NRA. We can't even agree on a ban on assault weapons, let alone things like rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Meanwhile we have just had our 18th mass shooting in the last 8 years, yet our national policy on guns hasn't changed significantly. This is just an example, but it drives home the point that the United States has such a wide range of viewpoints and political opinions that we cannot seem to move the country much in any given direction. Our immigration system remains dysfunctional because we can't agree on any significant action to change the system. Abortion is incredibly difficult in many states despite it being legal because anti-abortion people restrict access to abortion in every legal way they can. Our government has a massive deficit because the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts and the Republicans won't agree to tax increases. Whenever the country tries to enact a specific policy, people on the other side of the issue dig in their heels and scream at the top of their lungs. In the current age of political polarization, the problem will only get worse as the country becomes more diverse and less homogenous. This leaves me incredibly pessimistic about the ability of the national government to effect significant change. I don't know if ceding more control to the states will improve things at all. Basically, I feel that most of our problems will go unfixed because we will not commit to a strong solution on either side of the political aisle. When the Democrats take power, the Republicans prevent them from enacting most of their desired policies, and vice versa. As a result we are doomed to attempt halfhearted middle-of-the-road solutions that try to make everybody happy but usually leave nobody happy. Think early hybrids: they were inefficient as gasoline cars because they had to carry around a heavy battery, and they were inefficient as electric cars because they had to carry a heavy fuel tank and engine. So that's why I think the U.S. political system is going to be inefficient and dysfunctional for the foreseeable future. Please let me know whether you think any part of this has any merit, and which parts you disagree with if you disagree.","c_root_id_A":"d47stv4","c_root_id_B":"d47gnmm","created_at_utc_A":1465850110,"created_at_utc_B":1465834876,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The US is doomed to be politically dysfunctional, but it's not because of diversity. It's because of polarization and entrenchment. Diversity is a GOOD thing in a political process. It allows for a greater range of possible solutions to be proposed and considered. (Have you considered Scholarships for Men in Teaching to help close the wage gap?) The problems are polarization and entrenchment. The elected official wasn't elected to help fix the immigration issue, he was elected to dig in on an entrenched and polarizing position. If we could get the halfhearted middle of the road solutions passed, it would be a HUGE step in the right direction. What we have is two sides screaming \"MY way or the Highway!!!!\" and being unable to enact ANYTHING unilaterally. We don't have an early hybrid car situation where progress is being made and functional, but not ideal, solutions are being implemented. What we have is one side saying \"All Cars MUST have 16,000 HP and 5 tires!!!!!\" and the other side saying \"All Cars MUST suck carbon out of the air AND hold 37 passengers AND be no larger than 3 ft X 6 ft!!!!!!\"....When what we really want is a hybrid with 160 HP room for 4 people and good gas mileage.","human_ref_B":"What *should* a \"functional\" government of a diverse group of people look like? I would argue that it should not \"try to get things done\" in the way you seem to want, and that moving the country in some one unified direction would itself be dysfunctional. Basically, not moving in some one direction is a perfectly functional approach to government in the U.S. Anything else would be dysfunctional.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15234.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"4nvpyc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The United States is doomed to be politically dysfunctional because of our diversity; we have such a wide range of viewpoints that is we will never commit to any significant changes on a national scale. Homogeneous countries like Japan have been able to completely remove guns from their country and their culture, and as a result they have a single-digit number of firearm homicides per year. Australia had a similar programs to massively reduce guns in their country, and their firearm homicide rate has declined by 50% in the last couple of decades. If anyone suggested that in the United States, they would be crucified by the NRA. We can't even agree on a ban on assault weapons, let alone things like rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Meanwhile we have just had our 18th mass shooting in the last 8 years, yet our national policy on guns hasn't changed significantly. This is just an example, but it drives home the point that the United States has such a wide range of viewpoints and political opinions that we cannot seem to move the country much in any given direction. Our immigration system remains dysfunctional because we can't agree on any significant action to change the system. Abortion is incredibly difficult in many states despite it being legal because anti-abortion people restrict access to abortion in every legal way they can. Our government has a massive deficit because the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts and the Republicans won't agree to tax increases. Whenever the country tries to enact a specific policy, people on the other side of the issue dig in their heels and scream at the top of their lungs. In the current age of political polarization, the problem will only get worse as the country becomes more diverse and less homogenous. This leaves me incredibly pessimistic about the ability of the national government to effect significant change. I don't know if ceding more control to the states will improve things at all. Basically, I feel that most of our problems will go unfixed because we will not commit to a strong solution on either side of the political aisle. When the Democrats take power, the Republicans prevent them from enacting most of their desired policies, and vice versa. As a result we are doomed to attempt halfhearted middle-of-the-road solutions that try to make everybody happy but usually leave nobody happy. Think early hybrids: they were inefficient as gasoline cars because they had to carry around a heavy battery, and they were inefficient as electric cars because they had to carry a heavy fuel tank and engine. So that's why I think the U.S. political system is going to be inefficient and dysfunctional for the foreseeable future. Please let me know whether you think any part of this has any merit, and which parts you disagree with if you disagree.","c_root_id_A":"d47z6gj","c_root_id_B":"d48jyp2","created_at_utc_A":1465858812,"created_at_utc_B":1465898341,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"What about Canada? More diverse than the US, similar political history, more political parties, more immigrants\/capita, and yet still makes sweeping changes (such as bringing guns under control, legalizing gay marriage, controlling crime, addressing wealth disparity, etc). If diversity is the problem, Canada should be just as dysfunctional as the states but it is not, so your case for diversity is week","human_ref_B":"America ranked #85 on cultural and ethnical diversity. so no, youre not that diverse","labels":0,"seconds_difference":39529.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"4nvpyc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The United States is doomed to be politically dysfunctional because of our diversity; we have such a wide range of viewpoints that is we will never commit to any significant changes on a national scale. Homogeneous countries like Japan have been able to completely remove guns from their country and their culture, and as a result they have a single-digit number of firearm homicides per year. Australia had a similar programs to massively reduce guns in their country, and their firearm homicide rate has declined by 50% in the last couple of decades. If anyone suggested that in the United States, they would be crucified by the NRA. We can't even agree on a ban on assault weapons, let alone things like rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Meanwhile we have just had our 18th mass shooting in the last 8 years, yet our national policy on guns hasn't changed significantly. This is just an example, but it drives home the point that the United States has such a wide range of viewpoints and political opinions that we cannot seem to move the country much in any given direction. Our immigration system remains dysfunctional because we can't agree on any significant action to change the system. Abortion is incredibly difficult in many states despite it being legal because anti-abortion people restrict access to abortion in every legal way they can. Our government has a massive deficit because the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts and the Republicans won't agree to tax increases. Whenever the country tries to enact a specific policy, people on the other side of the issue dig in their heels and scream at the top of their lungs. In the current age of political polarization, the problem will only get worse as the country becomes more diverse and less homogenous. This leaves me incredibly pessimistic about the ability of the national government to effect significant change. I don't know if ceding more control to the states will improve things at all. Basically, I feel that most of our problems will go unfixed because we will not commit to a strong solution on either side of the political aisle. When the Democrats take power, the Republicans prevent them from enacting most of their desired policies, and vice versa. As a result we are doomed to attempt halfhearted middle-of-the-road solutions that try to make everybody happy but usually leave nobody happy. Think early hybrids: they were inefficient as gasoline cars because they had to carry around a heavy battery, and they were inefficient as electric cars because they had to carry a heavy fuel tank and engine. So that's why I think the U.S. political system is going to be inefficient and dysfunctional for the foreseeable future. Please let me know whether you think any part of this has any merit, and which parts you disagree with if you disagree.","c_root_id_A":"d48jyp2","c_root_id_B":"d48blfq","created_at_utc_A":1465898341,"created_at_utc_B":1465876758,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"America ranked #85 on cultural and ethnical diversity. so no, youre not that diverse","human_ref_B":"The United States from the very beginning has been very politically diverse in its political views. Other than the diversity derived from progress in gender and race, I would think that we are actually less politically diverse now. Especially with our 2 cookie cutter political parties.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21583.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"ixmcku","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Joe Rogan is NOT a bigot towards trans people I've listened to a number of his podcasts. While it is obvious how he could get hate from woke people, he generally seems like a very open-minded and understanding guy, who I think has stated support for trans people before. He also had a guest who described a phenomenon where groups of teenage girls were claiming to be trans at highly statistically unlike rates, which seem to be some kind of psychological issue. Discussing psychological issues like this related to being trans doesn't make him some kind of bigot who deserves to be shut down.","c_root_id_A":"g67jneq","c_root_id_B":"g67jt1m","created_at_utc_A":1600779437,"created_at_utc_B":1600779541,"score_A":40,"score_B":110,"human_ref_A":"When he has someone on from NCTE, ACLU or HRC then I will believe it that he wipl at least give time to both sides. as far as I know he has not done this, He's very much rooted and transphobia around sports.","human_ref_B":"Rogan supporters like to claim that he discusses these topics dispassionately and just provides a place for people (ideally experts) to share their views. Rogan called Fallon Fox \"a man in a dress\". It is possible to discuss sports rules, transwomen, and hormone therapy in a respectful manner. There are lots of people who have done this without being called transphobes. Nothing about the conversation is inherently transphobic. But Rogan used *explicitly transphobic language*. He said very plainly that although he will use somebody's preferred pronouns he will never see them as a women. Rogan has a huge audience that listens to his beliefs. Some of those people will take what he said and say \"yeah that makes sense\" and do the same. This harms transgender people. Rogan had a researcher on his show to discuss her research on transgender people and transition regret. The \"researcher\" is not representative of the academic community. Her paper that made her internet famous has been widely discredited for having an *outrageously* biased methodology (seeking data on regret from websites that are explicitly anti-transition). This is equivalent to seeking data on vaccine problems from anti-vax websites. Further, she has published a book that takes her already unscientific work and expands it into being very explicitly transphobic (using transphobic language, dismissing competing science). Rogan enabled this woman to expand her audience from a small one to millions. He did so without considering the effect this would have and didn't even do something like pair the interview with an interview from somebody who actually is respected in the field. To summarize. * Rogan does not believe that transwomen are women. * Rogan uses language that is transphobic. * Rogan platforms transphobic \"researchers\" without a critical eye. Rogan *does* use preferred pronouns. That shit doesn't balance it out.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":104.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"ixmcku","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Joe Rogan is NOT a bigot towards trans people I've listened to a number of his podcasts. While it is obvious how he could get hate from woke people, he generally seems like a very open-minded and understanding guy, who I think has stated support for trans people before. He also had a guest who described a phenomenon where groups of teenage girls were claiming to be trans at highly statistically unlike rates, which seem to be some kind of psychological issue. Discussing psychological issues like this related to being trans doesn't make him some kind of bigot who deserves to be shut down.","c_root_id_A":"g68500g","c_root_id_B":"g6857mk","created_at_utc_A":1600791003,"created_at_utc_B":1600791109,"score_A":7,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Let's be honest here, if you haven't been called racist, sexist, a bigot, or whatever else in 2020, you haven't lived.","human_ref_B":"Rogan has a lot of what can be considered \u2018fringe\u2019 topic guests on his show. He\u2019s like a less out there version of the old Coast to Coast AM show with Art Bell. While I don\u2019t think he\u2019s a virulent transphobe out to harm the community, I think he\u2019s a bit of a meathead who is passively transphobic, much the way many white people are passively racist due to their upbringing or culture, not that they are active members of the KKK out to murder people. Basically, the guy isn\u2019t as informed as he likes to think he is. He\u2019s inclined to emotional \u2018reasoning\u2019 over logic and objectivity too. That said, I totally think he\u2019s the sort of person that, if I was friends with him IRL, I could invite to lunch and have a conversation where I said \u2018hey, your views on this subject are problematic and here is why\u2019 and actually have him listen and maybe change, much like a couple of my actual friends did. So while I\u2019m not a fan, I don\u2019t put him in the same category as the right wing evangelical crowd or TERFs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":106.0,"score_ratio":2.7142857143} {"post_id":"61jgfw","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Circumcision is an infringement on human rights and should be made illegal until the individual is of a sexual age and gives consent. If i were to ask you today: Do you think its acceptable for someone to make a decision on your behalf that involves a removal of a natural body part without your consent? I would wager the dominant answer would be 'No'. Studies have shown that that the removal of male foreskin has impact on sexual satisfaction in life. If you dont believe me please do a simple google search. The reasons behind circumcision range from aesthetics, religious practice, to sanitation of the male penis. Is this really a rational argument for making such a drastic decision that involves loss of natural biology? I think that circumcision should be something that the person decides for themselves when reached a sexual age (puberty). If not then, atleast the age of sexual consent which range from 15-18 in all of the world. Sex is a very important part of anyones life, why should should such a decision be decided upon others? I feel that the act entirely is an infringement on human rights and doesn't hold a logical stand point except for the cleanliness factor. Even then, Is it really all that inconvenient to teach a child how to properly clean their penis? This seems more a matter of paternal neglect. Something that simple to teach should not be an argument for the procedure. What about the argument of sexual aesthetics? Do you think that such a procedure should be considered ethical because the opposite sex find it more pleasing? There is a huge movement in the case for women that they argue their bodies should be a certain way to please men.. Isnt this the same thing? Circumcision is not an expensive procedure and i believe it should be of the choice of the individual later. Once something is removed like this, it cannot be replaced. I would have much preferred a choice in the matter, but now it is too late.","c_root_id_A":"dffade0","c_root_id_B":"dffbm2z","created_at_utc_A":1490523703,"created_at_utc_B":1490528000,"score_A":14,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Citing \"google for it\" as an information source is an important mistake. Especially on a controversial subject like this, you can find plenty of a poor articles and low quality studies claiming every ill imaginable. Contrary to your Google result, the consensus of the \"highest quality studies\" in peer reviewed journals is that circumcision does NOT impact sexual function or satisfaction. In fact, the medical consensus is that it carries some important BENEFITS, particularly for men who have sex with women. Male circumcision does not impact sexual function or pleasure: * The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision \"Technical Report\" (2012) (addresses sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction without qualification by age of circumcision) * Sadeghi-Nejad et al. \"Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual function\" (2010) (addresses adult circumcision and sexual function) * Doyle et al. \"The Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV Transmission\" (2010) (addresses adult circumcision and sexual function) * Perera et al. \"Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review\" (2010) (addresses adult circumcision and sexual function and satisfaction) * Morris, BJ; Krieger, JN (November 2013). \"Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?--a systematic review.\". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 10 (11): 2644\u201357. doi:10.1111\/jsm.12293. PMID 23937309. * Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AA, Gray RH, Bailis SA, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Willcourt RJ, Halperin DT, Wiswell TE, Mindel A (2012). \"A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?\". BMC Pediatr. 12: 20. doi:10.1186\/1471-2431-12-20. PMC 3359221 . PMID 22373281. * Friedman, B; Khoury, J; Petersiel, N; Yahalomi, T; Paul, M; Neuberger, A (4 August 2016). \"Pros and cons of circumcision: an evidence-based overview.\". Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 22: 768\u2013774. doi:10.1016\/j.cmi.2016.07.030. PMID 27497811. Male circumcision significantly reduces HIV risk. See: * Krieger JN (May 2011). \"Male circumcision and HIV infection risk\". World Journal of Urology. 30 (1): 3\u201313. doi:10.1007\/s00345-011-0696-x. PMID 21590467 * Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, Volmink J; Muller; Deeks; Volmink (2009). Siegfried, Nandi, ed. \"Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men\". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2): CD003362. doi:10.1002\/14651858.CD003362.pub2. PMID 19370585. Note that the latter study was aborted early because of concerns from the ethics board. The reduction in HIV rate was SO HIGH (up to 66%) that it was deemed inhumane to DENY circumcision to the control group. The WHO and UNAIDS both consider male circumcision (by a medical professional) as an effective intervention for HIV prevention. Circumcised males who have sex with women are also less likely to have the cancer causing types of HPV: * Larke et al. \"Male circumcision and human papillomavirus infection in men: a systematic review and meta-analysis\" (2011) * Albero et al. \"Male Circumcision and Genital Human Papillomavirus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\" (2012) * Rehmeyer \"Male Circumcision and Human Papillomavirus Studies Reviewed by Infection Stage and Virus Type\" (2011). Circumcised males who have sex with women also enjoy reduced transmission rates for other STDs, such as syphilis and chancroid herpes: * Weiss, HA; Thomas, SL; Munabi, SK; Hayes, RJ (April 2006). \"Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta\u2010analysis\". Sexually Transmitted Infections. 82 (2): 101\u20139; discussion 110. doi:10.1136\/sti.2005.017442. PMC 2653870 . PMID 16581731. You my have other, moral or philosophical objections, but objections on medical grounds are not founded. In some areas (ie areas with high HIV rates like Sub Saharan Africa) it is even advised as a universal procedure.","human_ref_B":">Do you think that such a procedure should be considered ethical because the opposite sex find it more pleasing? I was all with you until this point. Are you seriously blaming women for the fact that circumcision is so popular in some parts of the world? I really think that it's a bit more complicated than that and the fact that you simplistically insinuate that it's, in part, done because of women is hugely unprovable. Also what about medical issues? If a male infant has some sort of medical issue with his foreskin that would cause pain or discomfort down the line, then, of course a parent should work with doctors to make the best decision for that child's health. For the rest, I agree that circumcision is, at least for aesthetic purposes, completely archaic in today's society where hygiene and education should be forthcoming.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4297.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"61jgfw","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Circumcision is an infringement on human rights and should be made illegal until the individual is of a sexual age and gives consent. If i were to ask you today: Do you think its acceptable for someone to make a decision on your behalf that involves a removal of a natural body part without your consent? I would wager the dominant answer would be 'No'. Studies have shown that that the removal of male foreskin has impact on sexual satisfaction in life. If you dont believe me please do a simple google search. The reasons behind circumcision range from aesthetics, religious practice, to sanitation of the male penis. Is this really a rational argument for making such a drastic decision that involves loss of natural biology? I think that circumcision should be something that the person decides for themselves when reached a sexual age (puberty). If not then, atleast the age of sexual consent which range from 15-18 in all of the world. Sex is a very important part of anyones life, why should should such a decision be decided upon others? I feel that the act entirely is an infringement on human rights and doesn't hold a logical stand point except for the cleanliness factor. Even then, Is it really all that inconvenient to teach a child how to properly clean their penis? This seems more a matter of paternal neglect. Something that simple to teach should not be an argument for the procedure. What about the argument of sexual aesthetics? Do you think that such a procedure should be considered ethical because the opposite sex find it more pleasing? There is a huge movement in the case for women that they argue their bodies should be a certain way to please men.. Isnt this the same thing? Circumcision is not an expensive procedure and i believe it should be of the choice of the individual later. Once something is removed like this, it cannot be replaced. I would have much preferred a choice in the matter, but now it is too late.","c_root_id_A":"dff85bx","c_root_id_B":"dffbm2z","created_at_utc_A":1490515915,"created_at_utc_B":1490528000,"score_A":9,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"I have a unique perspective of someone who made the decision to get circumcised at the age of 26 years old (Currently 27). Skip this middle part if you don't want to read anything too graphic. It is a really sad story, actually. I've suffered for as long as I can remember from something called phiomosis. It's when the opening in the foreskin is (in my case, just a little) too small to allow full retraction. I could pull my skin back fully when flaccid, although it did cause me much pain, including but not limited to flaky, dry skin; cracks and fissures on the opening lip of my foreskin (similar to a really bad chapped lip), and full on ripping when attempting to have sex. I clammed up about this problem, thinking everything was hopeless and there was nothing I could do. I tried gentle stretch exercises, steroid creams, and every lotion imaginable, but nothing worked. For me, and a good number of others out there, circumcision was the only answer. Now back to your argument, if I was to go through this life again, having people this time around that would teach me about my body and what was normal and what to expect, I could easily see myself in the shoes of a 14 year old version of me, wondering why my foreskin won't retract when I have a boner! If I was able to freely express how much pain it caused me when I would get erections but already have chapped skin, something could have been done. But not if it was outright illegal until I was an adult. I would have to wait until my 18th birthday to feel pleasure without pain.","human_ref_B":">Do you think that such a procedure should be considered ethical because the opposite sex find it more pleasing? I was all with you until this point. Are you seriously blaming women for the fact that circumcision is so popular in some parts of the world? I really think that it's a bit more complicated than that and the fact that you simplistically insinuate that it's, in part, done because of women is hugely unprovable. Also what about medical issues? If a male infant has some sort of medical issue with his foreskin that would cause pain or discomfort down the line, then, of course a parent should work with doctors to make the best decision for that child's health. For the rest, I agree that circumcision is, at least for aesthetic purposes, completely archaic in today's society where hygiene and education should be forthcoming.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12085.0,"score_ratio":3.1111111111} {"post_id":"61jgfw","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: Circumcision is an infringement on human rights and should be made illegal until the individual is of a sexual age and gives consent. If i were to ask you today: Do you think its acceptable for someone to make a decision on your behalf that involves a removal of a natural body part without your consent? I would wager the dominant answer would be 'No'. Studies have shown that that the removal of male foreskin has impact on sexual satisfaction in life. If you dont believe me please do a simple google search. The reasons behind circumcision range from aesthetics, religious practice, to sanitation of the male penis. Is this really a rational argument for making such a drastic decision that involves loss of natural biology? I think that circumcision should be something that the person decides for themselves when reached a sexual age (puberty). If not then, atleast the age of sexual consent which range from 15-18 in all of the world. Sex is a very important part of anyones life, why should should such a decision be decided upon others? I feel that the act entirely is an infringement on human rights and doesn't hold a logical stand point except for the cleanliness factor. Even then, Is it really all that inconvenient to teach a child how to properly clean their penis? This seems more a matter of paternal neglect. Something that simple to teach should not be an argument for the procedure. What about the argument of sexual aesthetics? Do you think that such a procedure should be considered ethical because the opposite sex find it more pleasing? There is a huge movement in the case for women that they argue their bodies should be a certain way to please men.. Isnt this the same thing? Circumcision is not an expensive procedure and i believe it should be of the choice of the individual later. Once something is removed like this, it cannot be replaced. I would have much preferred a choice in the matter, but now it is too late.","c_root_id_A":"dff85bx","c_root_id_B":"dffade0","created_at_utc_A":1490515915,"created_at_utc_B":1490523703,"score_A":9,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I have a unique perspective of someone who made the decision to get circumcised at the age of 26 years old (Currently 27). Skip this middle part if you don't want to read anything too graphic. It is a really sad story, actually. I've suffered for as long as I can remember from something called phiomosis. It's when the opening in the foreskin is (in my case, just a little) too small to allow full retraction. I could pull my skin back fully when flaccid, although it did cause me much pain, including but not limited to flaky, dry skin; cracks and fissures on the opening lip of my foreskin (similar to a really bad chapped lip), and full on ripping when attempting to have sex. I clammed up about this problem, thinking everything was hopeless and there was nothing I could do. I tried gentle stretch exercises, steroid creams, and every lotion imaginable, but nothing worked. For me, and a good number of others out there, circumcision was the only answer. Now back to your argument, if I was to go through this life again, having people this time around that would teach me about my body and what was normal and what to expect, I could easily see myself in the shoes of a 14 year old version of me, wondering why my foreskin won't retract when I have a boner! If I was able to freely express how much pain it caused me when I would get erections but already have chapped skin, something could have been done. But not if it was outright illegal until I was an adult. I would have to wait until my 18th birthday to feel pleasure without pain.","human_ref_B":"Citing \"google for it\" as an information source is an important mistake. Especially on a controversial subject like this, you can find plenty of a poor articles and low quality studies claiming every ill imaginable. Contrary to your Google result, the consensus of the \"highest quality studies\" in peer reviewed journals is that circumcision does NOT impact sexual function or satisfaction. In fact, the medical consensus is that it carries some important BENEFITS, particularly for men who have sex with women. Male circumcision does not impact sexual function or pleasure: * The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision \"Technical Report\" (2012) (addresses sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction without qualification by age of circumcision) * Sadeghi-Nejad et al. \"Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual function\" (2010) (addresses adult circumcision and sexual function) * Doyle et al. \"The Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV Transmission\" (2010) (addresses adult circumcision and sexual function) * Perera et al. \"Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review\" (2010) (addresses adult circumcision and sexual function and satisfaction) * Morris, BJ; Krieger, JN (November 2013). \"Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?--a systematic review.\". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 10 (11): 2644\u201357. doi:10.1111\/jsm.12293. PMID 23937309. * Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AA, Gray RH, Bailis SA, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Willcourt RJ, Halperin DT, Wiswell TE, Mindel A (2012). \"A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?\". BMC Pediatr. 12: 20. doi:10.1186\/1471-2431-12-20. PMC 3359221 . PMID 22373281. * Friedman, B; Khoury, J; Petersiel, N; Yahalomi, T; Paul, M; Neuberger, A (4 August 2016). \"Pros and cons of circumcision: an evidence-based overview.\". Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 22: 768\u2013774. doi:10.1016\/j.cmi.2016.07.030. PMID 27497811. Male circumcision significantly reduces HIV risk. See: * Krieger JN (May 2011). \"Male circumcision and HIV infection risk\". World Journal of Urology. 30 (1): 3\u201313. doi:10.1007\/s00345-011-0696-x. PMID 21590467 * Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, Volmink J; Muller; Deeks; Volmink (2009). Siegfried, Nandi, ed. \"Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men\". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2): CD003362. doi:10.1002\/14651858.CD003362.pub2. PMID 19370585. Note that the latter study was aborted early because of concerns from the ethics board. The reduction in HIV rate was SO HIGH (up to 66%) that it was deemed inhumane to DENY circumcision to the control group. The WHO and UNAIDS both consider male circumcision (by a medical professional) as an effective intervention for HIV prevention. Circumcised males who have sex with women are also less likely to have the cancer causing types of HPV: * Larke et al. \"Male circumcision and human papillomavirus infection in men: a systematic review and meta-analysis\" (2011) * Albero et al. \"Male Circumcision and Genital Human Papillomavirus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\" (2012) * Rehmeyer \"Male Circumcision and Human Papillomavirus Studies Reviewed by Infection Stage and Virus Type\" (2011). Circumcised males who have sex with women also enjoy reduced transmission rates for other STDs, such as syphilis and chancroid herpes: * Weiss, HA; Thomas, SL; Munabi, SK; Hayes, RJ (April 2006). \"Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta\u2010analysis\". Sexually Transmitted Infections. 82 (2): 101\u20139; discussion 110. doi:10.1136\/sti.2005.017442. PMC 2653870 . PMID 16581731. You my have other, moral or philosophical objections, but objections on medical grounds are not founded. In some areas (ie areas with high HIV rates like Sub Saharan Africa) it is even advised as a universal procedure.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7788.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556} {"post_id":"jakfwc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: from a Catholic perspective, Biden is clearly the superior candidate. The thing that made this clear to me was the website catholicvoterguide. The only big thing that sticks out to me is abortion. Trump's position is clearly closer to the Church's stance on abortion but I don't really see him doing that much about it, but I think a lot of Bidens policies will help prevent many of the reasons people want to get abortions, so I think that issue is a bit of a wash, or even leans towards Biden. Most of the other issues seem like an obvious win for Biden. Biden's clearly more in line with the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. Biden's policies seem like they'll help more of the poor, disenfranchised, and discriminated against.","c_root_id_A":"g8q206u","c_root_id_B":"g8q7xjb","created_at_utc_A":1602618008,"created_at_utc_B":1602620944,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Don't you think the 1994 crime bill that Biden wrote hurt the poor, disenfranchised, and discriminated against? https:\/\/www.vox.com\/policy-and-politics\/2019\/6\/20\/18677998\/joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-law-mass-incarceration","human_ref_B":"Honestly, I am not surprised by your stance but always find it odd that someone who says they are a Catholic would choose to vote for Biden vs Trump. I am not sure if you and I are reading and comprehending in the same way, but when I go to: https:\/\/www.ewtn.com\/vote\/download\/2020-platforms.pdf it basically is a litany of reasons why Trump is more in line with Catholic Teaching than Biden. The 3 main \"non-negotiable\" issues for Catholic's laid out in this document are: Abortion Dignity of Natural Marriage and Family Freedom of Religion On All 3 of these, Trump is much closer (if not aligned with) to the Catholic Church. Just based on these 3 alone all Catholics should be voting for Trump.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2936.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"jakfwc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: from a Catholic perspective, Biden is clearly the superior candidate. The thing that made this clear to me was the website catholicvoterguide. The only big thing that sticks out to me is abortion. Trump's position is clearly closer to the Church's stance on abortion but I don't really see him doing that much about it, but I think a lot of Bidens policies will help prevent many of the reasons people want to get abortions, so I think that issue is a bit of a wash, or even leans towards Biden. Most of the other issues seem like an obvious win for Biden. Biden's clearly more in line with the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. Biden's policies seem like they'll help more of the poor, disenfranchised, and discriminated against.","c_root_id_A":"g8q206u","c_root_id_B":"g8q9hgf","created_at_utc_A":1602618008,"created_at_utc_B":1602621589,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Don't you think the 1994 crime bill that Biden wrote hurt the poor, disenfranchised, and discriminated against? https:\/\/www.vox.com\/policy-and-politics\/2019\/6\/20\/18677998\/joe-biden-1994-crime-bill-law-mass-incarceration","human_ref_B":"I jus thought of another issue. While this is not in the \"non-negotiable\" part of the voter guide, it is still important to Catholics. And this is Trump's unapologetic support of Isreal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3581.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"jakfwc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: from a Catholic perspective, Biden is clearly the superior candidate. The thing that made this clear to me was the website catholicvoterguide. The only big thing that sticks out to me is abortion. Trump's position is clearly closer to the Church's stance on abortion but I don't really see him doing that much about it, but I think a lot of Bidens policies will help prevent many of the reasons people want to get abortions, so I think that issue is a bit of a wash, or even leans towards Biden. Most of the other issues seem like an obvious win for Biden. Biden's clearly more in line with the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. Biden's policies seem like they'll help more of the poor, disenfranchised, and discriminated against.","c_root_id_A":"g8rlmox","c_root_id_B":"g8t7p6u","created_at_utc_A":1602648721,"created_at_utc_B":1602693991,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"\\> I don't really see him doing that much about it, Other than putting 3 Supreme Court Justices on the bench to overturn Roe v Wade? That's pretty huge, actually. It was a big argument that people used in 2016 to justify a vote for Trump even though most people saw through is schtick.","human_ref_B":"Biden is supported by the Wokeists. Wokeism isn't just un-Catholic - it's anti-Catholic, it's an insane cult, evidently hostile to Christianity. Do faithful Catholics really have a single reason to support their culture war enemy?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":45270.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"jakfwc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: from a Catholic perspective, Biden is clearly the superior candidate. The thing that made this clear to me was the website catholicvoterguide. The only big thing that sticks out to me is abortion. Trump's position is clearly closer to the Church's stance on abortion but I don't really see him doing that much about it, but I think a lot of Bidens policies will help prevent many of the reasons people want to get abortions, so I think that issue is a bit of a wash, or even leans towards Biden. Most of the other issues seem like an obvious win for Biden. Biden's clearly more in line with the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. Biden's policies seem like they'll help more of the poor, disenfranchised, and discriminated against.","c_root_id_A":"g8t7p6u","c_root_id_B":"g8s0j7i","created_at_utc_A":1602693991,"created_at_utc_B":1602662657,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Biden is supported by the Wokeists. Wokeism isn't just un-Catholic - it's anti-Catholic, it's an insane cult, evidently hostile to Christianity. Do faithful Catholics really have a single reason to support their culture war enemy?","human_ref_B":"As someone who's been studying Catholic Theology for a while now, I would say that your voters guide website is extremely inaccurate and subjective. One example, it says that Biden \"values children\" whereas Trump does not. That's an incredibly vague judgement. You could pull policies from both candidates that help children. Your website also places a huge priority on anti-war rhetoric and immigration. Catholic Theology says to treat others fairly. No Father of the Church has ever said you need to: defund your military, or have open borders, or support the green new deal, Or support jobs for everyone, as your website suggests. Trump isn't \"pro-racism\" as your guide suggests, and the articles they link are bunk (he got rid of mandated diversity training) The website does a terrible job of both analyzing the candidates, and analyzing Catholic doctrine. Do your own research.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31334.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"jakfwc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: from a Catholic perspective, Biden is clearly the superior candidate. The thing that made this clear to me was the website catholicvoterguide. The only big thing that sticks out to me is abortion. Trump's position is clearly closer to the Church's stance on abortion but I don't really see him doing that much about it, but I think a lot of Bidens policies will help prevent many of the reasons people want to get abortions, so I think that issue is a bit of a wash, or even leans towards Biden. Most of the other issues seem like an obvious win for Biden. Biden's clearly more in line with the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. Biden's policies seem like they'll help more of the poor, disenfranchised, and discriminated against.","c_root_id_A":"g8rlmox","c_root_id_B":"g9aanky","created_at_utc_A":1602648721,"created_at_utc_B":1603074097,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"\\> I don't really see him doing that much about it, Other than putting 3 Supreme Court Justices on the bench to overturn Roe v Wade? That's pretty huge, actually. It was a big argument that people used in 2016 to justify a vote for Trump even though most people saw through is schtick.","human_ref_B":"Come on man Biden is catholic only for the votes. Very few people on the left actually like catholic morality. Most of them want to tear it down. They discredit church for its good acts and slander it wherever possible. I also feel Biden himself is not in control in the party. And I can't see one single person on the left who is a good catholic or believes in catholic values. The man says \"Antifa is not real\" and protests the appointment of an Originalist judge to the supreme court just because she's a catholic and mother of seven. I don't get what you are saying man....","labels":0,"seconds_difference":425376.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"jakfwc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: from a Catholic perspective, Biden is clearly the superior candidate. The thing that made this clear to me was the website catholicvoterguide. The only big thing that sticks out to me is abortion. Trump's position is clearly closer to the Church's stance on abortion but I don't really see him doing that much about it, but I think a lot of Bidens policies will help prevent many of the reasons people want to get abortions, so I think that issue is a bit of a wash, or even leans towards Biden. Most of the other issues seem like an obvious win for Biden. Biden's clearly more in line with the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. Biden's policies seem like they'll help more of the poor, disenfranchised, and discriminated against.","c_root_id_A":"g9aanky","c_root_id_B":"g8s0j7i","created_at_utc_A":1603074097,"created_at_utc_B":1602662657,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Come on man Biden is catholic only for the votes. Very few people on the left actually like catholic morality. Most of them want to tear it down. They discredit church for its good acts and slander it wherever possible. I also feel Biden himself is not in control in the party. And I can't see one single person on the left who is a good catholic or believes in catholic values. The man says \"Antifa is not real\" and protests the appointment of an Originalist judge to the supreme court just because she's a catholic and mother of seven. I don't get what you are saying man....","human_ref_B":"As someone who's been studying Catholic Theology for a while now, I would say that your voters guide website is extremely inaccurate and subjective. One example, it says that Biden \"values children\" whereas Trump does not. That's an incredibly vague judgement. You could pull policies from both candidates that help children. Your website also places a huge priority on anti-war rhetoric and immigration. Catholic Theology says to treat others fairly. No Father of the Church has ever said you need to: defund your military, or have open borders, or support the green new deal, Or support jobs for everyone, as your website suggests. Trump isn't \"pro-racism\" as your guide suggests, and the articles they link are bunk (he got rid of mandated diversity training) The website does a terrible job of both analyzing the candidates, and analyzing Catholic doctrine. Do your own research.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":411440.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"jakfwc","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: from a Catholic perspective, Biden is clearly the superior candidate. The thing that made this clear to me was the website catholicvoterguide. The only big thing that sticks out to me is abortion. Trump's position is clearly closer to the Church's stance on abortion but I don't really see him doing that much about it, but I think a lot of Bidens policies will help prevent many of the reasons people want to get abortions, so I think that issue is a bit of a wash, or even leans towards Biden. Most of the other issues seem like an obvious win for Biden. Biden's clearly more in line with the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. Biden's policies seem like they'll help more of the poor, disenfranchised, and discriminated against.","c_root_id_A":"g9aanky","c_root_id_B":"g8tvrnm","created_at_utc_A":1603074097,"created_at_utc_B":1602706108,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Come on man Biden is catholic only for the votes. Very few people on the left actually like catholic morality. Most of them want to tear it down. They discredit church for its good acts and slander it wherever possible. I also feel Biden himself is not in control in the party. And I can't see one single person on the left who is a good catholic or believes in catholic values. The man says \"Antifa is not real\" and protests the appointment of an Originalist judge to the supreme court just because she's a catholic and mother of seven. I don't get what you are saying man....","human_ref_B":"I disagree. For one, many Catholics don\u2019t exactly think what the pope is doing is really catholic (for example, China). Next, that website is very biased towards Biden, and is basically trying to convince you to vote for him. Not a good source of \u201cfacts.\u201d Lastly, I\u2019d like to point something out when it comes to policies, such as abortion or gay marriage, two things that are anti-catholic but many people argue here that Trump isn\u2019t doing much about it. While that is true, the fact is doing nothing is far better than making it worse. And that is what Biden\u2019s party wants. Remember, you\u2019re not only voting for a candidate but also for the party. Especially with Biden.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":367989.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"92yjxz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Severe crimes should be met with lethal injection I\u2019m not proposing that every person ever charged with murder should be put to death. I believe in cases where people commit brutal acts against others and we have 0 reason to doubt it was them, they should be given the death penalty. This would include anyone who commits mass murder (Parkland shooter or anyone of that sort), terrorists, serial rapists\/killers, etc. I believe anyone who commits crimes like these, no longer has a place in society and we shouldn\u2019t keep paying for them to rot away in a cell. They should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals.","c_root_id_A":"e39cy28","c_root_id_B":"e39c7gq","created_at_utc_A":1532903753,"created_at_utc_B":1532902983,"score_A":24,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Aside from the moral arguments against the death penalty, there are three main reasons why the death penalty should not be used. Death penalty convictions cost exorbitantly more than convictions resulting in life with out parole. This is almost almost always constant in every jurisdiction and every case that uses the death penalty as a form of punishment in the United States. The high cost associated with special trials, special provisions for death row prisoners as well as expensive drugs puts excessive strain on a criminal justice system that is already plagued with financial mismanagement. In addition to the cost, the USA often makes mistakes in death penalty cases. Some studies estimate up to 4% of individuals put to death were not guilty of the crimes they were convicted of. The irreversible nature of death means that there is no way for the justice system to right its wrongs should an innocent person be executed. The final reason that lethal injection is not preferable is the fact that it is not a deterrent for crimes. There is no evidence pointing to a decrease in high crime associated with the institution of capital punishment. Because of its cost, irreversibility, and, lack of effectiveness as a deterrent, lethal injection is less favorable than life without parole. edit-grammar","human_ref_B":"No appeals? That's an extreme stance. What sort of failure rate is acceptable. If we execute 100 people how many of those should be allowed to be innocent in your view?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":770.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"92yjxz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Severe crimes should be met with lethal injection I\u2019m not proposing that every person ever charged with murder should be put to death. I believe in cases where people commit brutal acts against others and we have 0 reason to doubt it was them, they should be given the death penalty. This would include anyone who commits mass murder (Parkland shooter or anyone of that sort), terrorists, serial rapists\/killers, etc. I believe anyone who commits crimes like these, no longer has a place in society and we shouldn\u2019t keep paying for them to rot away in a cell. They should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals.","c_root_id_A":"e39cdid","c_root_id_B":"e39cy28","created_at_utc_A":1532903161,"created_at_utc_B":1532903753,"score_A":12,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"> we have 0 reason to doubt it was them That's impossible. Even if they admit it and every witness confirms it, that doesn't guarantee that it was them.","human_ref_B":"Aside from the moral arguments against the death penalty, there are three main reasons why the death penalty should not be used. Death penalty convictions cost exorbitantly more than convictions resulting in life with out parole. This is almost almost always constant in every jurisdiction and every case that uses the death penalty as a form of punishment in the United States. The high cost associated with special trials, special provisions for death row prisoners as well as expensive drugs puts excessive strain on a criminal justice system that is already plagued with financial mismanagement. In addition to the cost, the USA often makes mistakes in death penalty cases. Some studies estimate up to 4% of individuals put to death were not guilty of the crimes they were convicted of. The irreversible nature of death means that there is no way for the justice system to right its wrongs should an innocent person be executed. The final reason that lethal injection is not preferable is the fact that it is not a deterrent for crimes. There is no evidence pointing to a decrease in high crime associated with the institution of capital punishment. Because of its cost, irreversibility, and, lack of effectiveness as a deterrent, lethal injection is less favorable than life without parole. edit-grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":592.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"92yjxz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Severe crimes should be met with lethal injection I\u2019m not proposing that every person ever charged with murder should be put to death. I believe in cases where people commit brutal acts against others and we have 0 reason to doubt it was them, they should be given the death penalty. This would include anyone who commits mass murder (Parkland shooter or anyone of that sort), terrorists, serial rapists\/killers, etc. I believe anyone who commits crimes like these, no longer has a place in society and we shouldn\u2019t keep paying for them to rot away in a cell. They should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals.","c_root_id_A":"e39csd3","c_root_id_B":"e39cy28","created_at_utc_A":1532903589,"created_at_utc_B":1532903753,"score_A":2,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"The whole point of the appeals process is that there IS some basis to doubt the ruling of the lower court. You cannot even file an appeal without having at some SOME basis for doing so. Its not like you can appeal - just for the lolz. If there is a non-0 reason for an appeal, there is an appeal. If there is no reason for an appeal, there isn't an appeal. You seem to believe that appeals happen with no basis - this isn't so.","human_ref_B":"Aside from the moral arguments against the death penalty, there are three main reasons why the death penalty should not be used. Death penalty convictions cost exorbitantly more than convictions resulting in life with out parole. This is almost almost always constant in every jurisdiction and every case that uses the death penalty as a form of punishment in the United States. The high cost associated with special trials, special provisions for death row prisoners as well as expensive drugs puts excessive strain on a criminal justice system that is already plagued with financial mismanagement. In addition to the cost, the USA often makes mistakes in death penalty cases. Some studies estimate up to 4% of individuals put to death were not guilty of the crimes they were convicted of. The irreversible nature of death means that there is no way for the justice system to right its wrongs should an innocent person be executed. The final reason that lethal injection is not preferable is the fact that it is not a deterrent for crimes. There is no evidence pointing to a decrease in high crime associated with the institution of capital punishment. Because of its cost, irreversibility, and, lack of effectiveness as a deterrent, lethal injection is less favorable than life without parole. edit-grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":164.0,"score_ratio":12.0} {"post_id":"92yjxz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Severe crimes should be met with lethal injection I\u2019m not proposing that every person ever charged with murder should be put to death. I believe in cases where people commit brutal acts against others and we have 0 reason to doubt it was them, they should be given the death penalty. This would include anyone who commits mass murder (Parkland shooter or anyone of that sort), terrorists, serial rapists\/killers, etc. I believe anyone who commits crimes like these, no longer has a place in society and we shouldn\u2019t keep paying for them to rot away in a cell. They should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals.","c_root_id_A":"e39eij5","c_root_id_B":"e39csd3","created_at_utc_A":1532905408,"created_at_utc_B":1532903589,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">and we have 0 reason to doubt it was them, they should be given the death penalty. But this has happened in the past... and then a few years later we realize... oh shit... you remember that guy we had 0 reason to believe it wasn't him? Welll uhh... it wasn't him... There is also plenty or moral arguments against killing people. At a certain point, we should be past that as a society.","human_ref_B":"The whole point of the appeals process is that there IS some basis to doubt the ruling of the lower court. You cannot even file an appeal without having at some SOME basis for doing so. Its not like you can appeal - just for the lolz. If there is a non-0 reason for an appeal, there is an appeal. If there is no reason for an appeal, there isn't an appeal. You seem to believe that appeals happen with no basis - this isn't so.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1819.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"92yjxz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Severe crimes should be met with lethal injection I\u2019m not proposing that every person ever charged with murder should be put to death. I believe in cases where people commit brutal acts against others and we have 0 reason to doubt it was them, they should be given the death penalty. This would include anyone who commits mass murder (Parkland shooter or anyone of that sort), terrorists, serial rapists\/killers, etc. I believe anyone who commits crimes like these, no longer has a place in society and we shouldn\u2019t keep paying for them to rot away in a cell. They should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals.","c_root_id_A":"e39hg9c","c_root_id_B":"e39csd3","created_at_utc_A":1532908640,"created_at_utc_B":1532903589,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Anoxia is probably a more humane (and cheaper) method of execution.","human_ref_B":"The whole point of the appeals process is that there IS some basis to doubt the ruling of the lower court. You cannot even file an appeal without having at some SOME basis for doing so. Its not like you can appeal - just for the lolz. If there is a non-0 reason for an appeal, there is an appeal. If there is no reason for an appeal, there isn't an appeal. You seem to believe that appeals happen with no basis - this isn't so.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5051.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"92yjxz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Severe crimes should be met with lethal injection I\u2019m not proposing that every person ever charged with murder should be put to death. I believe in cases where people commit brutal acts against others and we have 0 reason to doubt it was them, they should be given the death penalty. This would include anyone who commits mass murder (Parkland shooter or anyone of that sort), terrorists, serial rapists\/killers, etc. I believe anyone who commits crimes like these, no longer has a place in society and we shouldn\u2019t keep paying for them to rot away in a cell. They should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals.","c_root_id_A":"e3a36v8","c_root_id_B":"e39csd3","created_at_utc_A":1532937727,"created_at_utc_B":1532903589,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Doesn't make sense from any perspective. 1, It costs more to go through the court system for 1 death penalty charge, than for lifetime of imprisonment. It costs much more. 2, It has not deterring effect. The fact that your state has death penalty, does not decrease crime, in fact it increases the lethality of certain crimes (Why risk execution, if you can get rid of the witness?) 3, >hey should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals. So you want to rework our court system to make executions easier. Well hello there dictator in chief.","human_ref_B":"The whole point of the appeals process is that there IS some basis to doubt the ruling of the lower court. You cannot even file an appeal without having at some SOME basis for doing so. Its not like you can appeal - just for the lolz. If there is a non-0 reason for an appeal, there is an appeal. If there is no reason for an appeal, there isn't an appeal. You seem to believe that appeals happen with no basis - this isn't so.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34138.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"92yjxz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Severe crimes should be met with lethal injection I\u2019m not proposing that every person ever charged with murder should be put to death. I believe in cases where people commit brutal acts against others and we have 0 reason to doubt it was them, they should be given the death penalty. This would include anyone who commits mass murder (Parkland shooter or anyone of that sort), terrorists, serial rapists\/killers, etc. I believe anyone who commits crimes like these, no longer has a place in society and we shouldn\u2019t keep paying for them to rot away in a cell. They should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals.","c_root_id_A":"e39enba","c_root_id_B":"e39hg9c","created_at_utc_A":1532905554,"created_at_utc_B":1532908640,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I partially agree with you, but what I think that people who have mental health issues that do commit severe crimes, like mass murders shouldn't be put to death, but into mental institutions, and cared for. Because they are not guilty for what they did, like mental illnesses like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or borderline personality disorder affect their ability to tell right from wrong.","human_ref_B":"Anoxia is probably a more humane (and cheaper) method of execution.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3086.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"92yjxz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Severe crimes should be met with lethal injection I\u2019m not proposing that every person ever charged with murder should be put to death. I believe in cases where people commit brutal acts against others and we have 0 reason to doubt it was them, they should be given the death penalty. This would include anyone who commits mass murder (Parkland shooter or anyone of that sort), terrorists, serial rapists\/killers, etc. I believe anyone who commits crimes like these, no longer has a place in society and we shouldn\u2019t keep paying for them to rot away in a cell. They should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals.","c_root_id_A":"e39enba","c_root_id_B":"e3a36v8","created_at_utc_A":1532905554,"created_at_utc_B":1532937727,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I partially agree with you, but what I think that people who have mental health issues that do commit severe crimes, like mass murders shouldn't be put to death, but into mental institutions, and cared for. Because they are not guilty for what they did, like mental illnesses like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or borderline personality disorder affect their ability to tell right from wrong.","human_ref_B":"Doesn't make sense from any perspective. 1, It costs more to go through the court system for 1 death penalty charge, than for lifetime of imprisonment. It costs much more. 2, It has not deterring effect. The fact that your state has death penalty, does not decrease crime, in fact it increases the lethality of certain crimes (Why risk execution, if you can get rid of the witness?) 3, >hey should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals. So you want to rework our court system to make executions easier. Well hello there dictator in chief.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32173.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"92yjxz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: Severe crimes should be met with lethal injection I\u2019m not proposing that every person ever charged with murder should be put to death. I believe in cases where people commit brutal acts against others and we have 0 reason to doubt it was them, they should be given the death penalty. This would include anyone who commits mass murder (Parkland shooter or anyone of that sort), terrorists, serial rapists\/killers, etc. I believe anyone who commits crimes like these, no longer has a place in society and we shouldn\u2019t keep paying for them to rot away in a cell. They should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals.","c_root_id_A":"e39sc0i","c_root_id_B":"e3a36v8","created_at_utc_A":1532920843,"created_at_utc_B":1532937727,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What would be the benefit of the death penalty over life in a maximum security prison without any hope of parole? The outcome is the same, and in the case of the latter, if any doubt comes out later (unlikely in the case of the Parkland shooter but you never know) you haven't done something you can't possibly make right. The death penalty also has negative effects on the people who administer it. Executioners can develop PTSD due to their job, and this could happen even if they know they're executing a monster. This is the reason they put blanks in one of the guns when they execute someone by firing squad, so that the shooters can each rationalize they didn't kill a person. And since there's no way to tell in advance who's susceptible to developing PTSD, the death penalty isn't fair to the people doing the executions.","human_ref_B":"Doesn't make sense from any perspective. 1, It costs more to go through the court system for 1 death penalty charge, than for lifetime of imprisonment. It costs much more. 2, It has not deterring effect. The fact that your state has death penalty, does not decrease crime, in fact it increases the lethality of certain crimes (Why risk execution, if you can get rid of the witness?) 3, >hey should get one opportunity in court and when they\u2019re proven guilty, that\u2019s it. No appeals. So you want to rework our court system to make executions easier. Well hello there dictator in chief.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16884.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"f2iatq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Washington D.C. needs to do something about its homeless and panhandling problem before it becomes unmanageable like in San Francisco The first thing I need to say is that I'm by no means an expert in policies used to manage homelessness crises. For that reason this post is going to be pretty vague in terms of what those solutions are. In my ideal world those solutions would be ethical, progressive, and would not involve forcing these people to move far away just for the sake of getting them out of the city. I know there is an extremely bad vibe around the name of this policy, but I suppose the bet solution that I can think of is something like a much less aggressive, racist, and invasive version of stop and frisk. For some context, I'm the typical D.C. implant who was fortunate enough to get a job and be able to move here right out of college. I've lived in Washington for 8 months in a diverse, lively neighborhood that I really enjoy. When I got here, I kind of just assumed that a lot of homeless people was a normal part of living in a big city. Recently, however, I've had a handful of bad experiences both in my neighborhood and downtown that just annoyed the shit out of me and I could imagine if I weren't a fairly big guy, would make me feel unsafe. There are days where I feel like I can't walk 100 feet without being asked for something, whether it's someone sitting on the sidewalk with a sign, loitering outside of the neighborhood shopping center or Union Station, or even walking around approaching people just trying to get from point A to B trying to yell through pedestrians' headphones. Yesterday, I was coming home from work, and there was a man, either mentally ill or visibly intoxicated, stumbling around a busy intersection near my apartment, bumping into people and scaring little kids begging people for a lighter. You could criticize me for having small town sensibilities, but I think I have a pretty high tolerance for just general shit going on around me. I hate NIMBYism. I would never call the cops on my neighbors when they have 25 people standing in their front yard blasting music and having a barbecue. I would never confront the motorcycle enthusiast living down the block who seems to love showing off how loud his engine is. Those battles aren't worth it to me. They belong in the neighborhood. They're entitled to do what they want on their property. So back to the progressive version of Stop and Frisk. I think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn't even take into account the amount of streetside camps, some of which are under remote overpasses but that also are located in some of the busiest intersections in the city. Police should have been able to confront the aforementioned guy stumbling around looking for a lighter. Because of my total lack of knowledge on how homelessness is normally dealt with, I'm probably easily impressionable to good ideas that could change my view, both from a more aggressive perspective or a progressive one. But at this point, it appears to me that the attempt to operate as a progressive city is turing public spaces in D.C. into a dirty free for all where addicts and the mentally ill are free to roam around bothering people and getting in everyone's way. I'd like to be able to walk from my house to the metro stop and then from the next stop to my office without having 10+ people begging me for money, of which I don't have any to give. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fhcqklz","c_root_id_B":"fhcrjl9","created_at_utc_A":1581468672,"created_at_utc_B":1581469297,"score_A":6,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Police telling homeless people to not stand somewhere for a prolonged period of time won\u2019t fix anything that\u2019s for sure. For mentally ill homeless we need agencies to get them the professional help they need before they can even become productive members of society.","human_ref_B":">\tI think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn\u2019t solve the problem at all, though, it just moves it. And I certainly wouldn\u2019t call it progressive. It\u2019s one thing to enforce the law and stop people from harassing others, but arbitrarily telling them to move without anything in place to take them in. More broadly, you should spend some time looking at what DC is actually doing to form an opinion. DC is closing some of the more egregious encampments, like they did with the Watergate site a few years ago and they are doing in NoMa now. Meanwhile, the overall population of homeless is actually falling, 12 percent since 2015.. Now, there is a lot to debate about the efficacy of their approach vs other options, but pretty much anything works better as a solution than simply harassing people. Underlying it all is the core problem that we need more housing in the area, both in a macro sense of constructing enough supply to meet demand to keep prices under control and the very specific sense of more shelter space. The NIMBY problem we have isn\u2019t really about people doing what they want on their own property, it\u2019s people saying they want to do something about homelessness but then opposing shelters in their neighborhoods, which in turned delays plans to expand safe shelter space, which in turn contributes to the problem you see.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":625.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"f2iatq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Washington D.C. needs to do something about its homeless and panhandling problem before it becomes unmanageable like in San Francisco The first thing I need to say is that I'm by no means an expert in policies used to manage homelessness crises. For that reason this post is going to be pretty vague in terms of what those solutions are. In my ideal world those solutions would be ethical, progressive, and would not involve forcing these people to move far away just for the sake of getting them out of the city. I know there is an extremely bad vibe around the name of this policy, but I suppose the bet solution that I can think of is something like a much less aggressive, racist, and invasive version of stop and frisk. For some context, I'm the typical D.C. implant who was fortunate enough to get a job and be able to move here right out of college. I've lived in Washington for 8 months in a diverse, lively neighborhood that I really enjoy. When I got here, I kind of just assumed that a lot of homeless people was a normal part of living in a big city. Recently, however, I've had a handful of bad experiences both in my neighborhood and downtown that just annoyed the shit out of me and I could imagine if I weren't a fairly big guy, would make me feel unsafe. There are days where I feel like I can't walk 100 feet without being asked for something, whether it's someone sitting on the sidewalk with a sign, loitering outside of the neighborhood shopping center or Union Station, or even walking around approaching people just trying to get from point A to B trying to yell through pedestrians' headphones. Yesterday, I was coming home from work, and there was a man, either mentally ill or visibly intoxicated, stumbling around a busy intersection near my apartment, bumping into people and scaring little kids begging people for a lighter. You could criticize me for having small town sensibilities, but I think I have a pretty high tolerance for just general shit going on around me. I hate NIMBYism. I would never call the cops on my neighbors when they have 25 people standing in their front yard blasting music and having a barbecue. I would never confront the motorcycle enthusiast living down the block who seems to love showing off how loud his engine is. Those battles aren't worth it to me. They belong in the neighborhood. They're entitled to do what they want on their property. So back to the progressive version of Stop and Frisk. I think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn't even take into account the amount of streetside camps, some of which are under remote overpasses but that also are located in some of the busiest intersections in the city. Police should have been able to confront the aforementioned guy stumbling around looking for a lighter. Because of my total lack of knowledge on how homelessness is normally dealt with, I'm probably easily impressionable to good ideas that could change my view, both from a more aggressive perspective or a progressive one. But at this point, it appears to me that the attempt to operate as a progressive city is turing public spaces in D.C. into a dirty free for all where addicts and the mentally ill are free to roam around bothering people and getting in everyone's way. I'd like to be able to walk from my house to the metro stop and then from the next stop to my office without having 10+ people begging me for money, of which I don't have any to give. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fhcrjl9","c_root_id_B":"fhcq575","created_at_utc_A":1581469297,"created_at_utc_B":1581468398,"score_A":15,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">\tI think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn\u2019t solve the problem at all, though, it just moves it. And I certainly wouldn\u2019t call it progressive. It\u2019s one thing to enforce the law and stop people from harassing others, but arbitrarily telling them to move without anything in place to take them in. More broadly, you should spend some time looking at what DC is actually doing to form an opinion. DC is closing some of the more egregious encampments, like they did with the Watergate site a few years ago and they are doing in NoMa now. Meanwhile, the overall population of homeless is actually falling, 12 percent since 2015.. Now, there is a lot to debate about the efficacy of their approach vs other options, but pretty much anything works better as a solution than simply harassing people. Underlying it all is the core problem that we need more housing in the area, both in a macro sense of constructing enough supply to meet demand to keep prices under control and the very specific sense of more shelter space. The NIMBY problem we have isn\u2019t really about people doing what they want on their own property, it\u2019s people saying they want to do something about homelessness but then opposing shelters in their neighborhoods, which in turned delays plans to expand safe shelter space, which in turn contributes to the problem you see.","human_ref_B":"This applies to every major city that has substantial infrastructure and support for its homeless population \u2014 there will be a lot of homeless people where homelessness is well supported. Do you think cities should stop supporting (sheltering\/feeding\/housing\/money) the homeless?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":899.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"f2iatq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Washington D.C. needs to do something about its homeless and panhandling problem before it becomes unmanageable like in San Francisco The first thing I need to say is that I'm by no means an expert in policies used to manage homelessness crises. For that reason this post is going to be pretty vague in terms of what those solutions are. In my ideal world those solutions would be ethical, progressive, and would not involve forcing these people to move far away just for the sake of getting them out of the city. I know there is an extremely bad vibe around the name of this policy, but I suppose the bet solution that I can think of is something like a much less aggressive, racist, and invasive version of stop and frisk. For some context, I'm the typical D.C. implant who was fortunate enough to get a job and be able to move here right out of college. I've lived in Washington for 8 months in a diverse, lively neighborhood that I really enjoy. When I got here, I kind of just assumed that a lot of homeless people was a normal part of living in a big city. Recently, however, I've had a handful of bad experiences both in my neighborhood and downtown that just annoyed the shit out of me and I could imagine if I weren't a fairly big guy, would make me feel unsafe. There are days where I feel like I can't walk 100 feet without being asked for something, whether it's someone sitting on the sidewalk with a sign, loitering outside of the neighborhood shopping center or Union Station, or even walking around approaching people just trying to get from point A to B trying to yell through pedestrians' headphones. Yesterday, I was coming home from work, and there was a man, either mentally ill or visibly intoxicated, stumbling around a busy intersection near my apartment, bumping into people and scaring little kids begging people for a lighter. You could criticize me for having small town sensibilities, but I think I have a pretty high tolerance for just general shit going on around me. I hate NIMBYism. I would never call the cops on my neighbors when they have 25 people standing in their front yard blasting music and having a barbecue. I would never confront the motorcycle enthusiast living down the block who seems to love showing off how loud his engine is. Those battles aren't worth it to me. They belong in the neighborhood. They're entitled to do what they want on their property. So back to the progressive version of Stop and Frisk. I think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn't even take into account the amount of streetside camps, some of which are under remote overpasses but that also are located in some of the busiest intersections in the city. Police should have been able to confront the aforementioned guy stumbling around looking for a lighter. Because of my total lack of knowledge on how homelessness is normally dealt with, I'm probably easily impressionable to good ideas that could change my view, both from a more aggressive perspective or a progressive one. But at this point, it appears to me that the attempt to operate as a progressive city is turing public spaces in D.C. into a dirty free for all where addicts and the mentally ill are free to roam around bothering people and getting in everyone's way. I'd like to be able to walk from my house to the metro stop and then from the next stop to my office without having 10+ people begging me for money, of which I don't have any to give. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fhcqc73","c_root_id_B":"fhcrjl9","created_at_utc_A":1581468521,"created_at_utc_B":1581469297,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"So you really want someone to change your mind that something needs to be done about high rates of homelessness? One flaw I y out argument where you would have the police Ish around the homeless, telling them where they can not stay is futile. What if they refuse? You do what? Fine them? It won\u2019t get paid. Jail them? So fill up cells to what end?","human_ref_B":">\tI think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn\u2019t solve the problem at all, though, it just moves it. And I certainly wouldn\u2019t call it progressive. It\u2019s one thing to enforce the law and stop people from harassing others, but arbitrarily telling them to move without anything in place to take them in. More broadly, you should spend some time looking at what DC is actually doing to form an opinion. DC is closing some of the more egregious encampments, like they did with the Watergate site a few years ago and they are doing in NoMa now. Meanwhile, the overall population of homeless is actually falling, 12 percent since 2015.. Now, there is a lot to debate about the efficacy of their approach vs other options, but pretty much anything works better as a solution than simply harassing people. Underlying it all is the core problem that we need more housing in the area, both in a macro sense of constructing enough supply to meet demand to keep prices under control and the very specific sense of more shelter space. The NIMBY problem we have isn\u2019t really about people doing what they want on their own property, it\u2019s people saying they want to do something about homelessness but then opposing shelters in their neighborhoods, which in turned delays plans to expand safe shelter space, which in turn contributes to the problem you see.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":776.0,"score_ratio":5.0} {"post_id":"f2iatq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Washington D.C. needs to do something about its homeless and panhandling problem before it becomes unmanageable like in San Francisco The first thing I need to say is that I'm by no means an expert in policies used to manage homelessness crises. For that reason this post is going to be pretty vague in terms of what those solutions are. In my ideal world those solutions would be ethical, progressive, and would not involve forcing these people to move far away just for the sake of getting them out of the city. I know there is an extremely bad vibe around the name of this policy, but I suppose the bet solution that I can think of is something like a much less aggressive, racist, and invasive version of stop and frisk. For some context, I'm the typical D.C. implant who was fortunate enough to get a job and be able to move here right out of college. I've lived in Washington for 8 months in a diverse, lively neighborhood that I really enjoy. When I got here, I kind of just assumed that a lot of homeless people was a normal part of living in a big city. Recently, however, I've had a handful of bad experiences both in my neighborhood and downtown that just annoyed the shit out of me and I could imagine if I weren't a fairly big guy, would make me feel unsafe. There are days where I feel like I can't walk 100 feet without being asked for something, whether it's someone sitting on the sidewalk with a sign, loitering outside of the neighborhood shopping center or Union Station, or even walking around approaching people just trying to get from point A to B trying to yell through pedestrians' headphones. Yesterday, I was coming home from work, and there was a man, either mentally ill or visibly intoxicated, stumbling around a busy intersection near my apartment, bumping into people and scaring little kids begging people for a lighter. You could criticize me for having small town sensibilities, but I think I have a pretty high tolerance for just general shit going on around me. I hate NIMBYism. I would never call the cops on my neighbors when they have 25 people standing in their front yard blasting music and having a barbecue. I would never confront the motorcycle enthusiast living down the block who seems to love showing off how loud his engine is. Those battles aren't worth it to me. They belong in the neighborhood. They're entitled to do what they want on their property. So back to the progressive version of Stop and Frisk. I think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn't even take into account the amount of streetside camps, some of which are under remote overpasses but that also are located in some of the busiest intersections in the city. Police should have been able to confront the aforementioned guy stumbling around looking for a lighter. Because of my total lack of knowledge on how homelessness is normally dealt with, I'm probably easily impressionable to good ideas that could change my view, both from a more aggressive perspective or a progressive one. But at this point, it appears to me that the attempt to operate as a progressive city is turing public spaces in D.C. into a dirty free for all where addicts and the mentally ill are free to roam around bothering people and getting in everyone's way. I'd like to be able to walk from my house to the metro stop and then from the next stop to my office without having 10+ people begging me for money, of which I don't have any to give. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fhcqklz","c_root_id_B":"fhcq575","created_at_utc_A":1581468672,"created_at_utc_B":1581468398,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Police telling homeless people to not stand somewhere for a prolonged period of time won\u2019t fix anything that\u2019s for sure. For mentally ill homeless we need agencies to get them the professional help they need before they can even become productive members of society.","human_ref_B":"This applies to every major city that has substantial infrastructure and support for its homeless population \u2014 there will be a lot of homeless people where homelessness is well supported. Do you think cities should stop supporting (sheltering\/feeding\/housing\/money) the homeless?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":274.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"f2iatq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Washington D.C. needs to do something about its homeless and panhandling problem before it becomes unmanageable like in San Francisco The first thing I need to say is that I'm by no means an expert in policies used to manage homelessness crises. For that reason this post is going to be pretty vague in terms of what those solutions are. In my ideal world those solutions would be ethical, progressive, and would not involve forcing these people to move far away just for the sake of getting them out of the city. I know there is an extremely bad vibe around the name of this policy, but I suppose the bet solution that I can think of is something like a much less aggressive, racist, and invasive version of stop and frisk. For some context, I'm the typical D.C. implant who was fortunate enough to get a job and be able to move here right out of college. I've lived in Washington for 8 months in a diverse, lively neighborhood that I really enjoy. When I got here, I kind of just assumed that a lot of homeless people was a normal part of living in a big city. Recently, however, I've had a handful of bad experiences both in my neighborhood and downtown that just annoyed the shit out of me and I could imagine if I weren't a fairly big guy, would make me feel unsafe. There are days where I feel like I can't walk 100 feet without being asked for something, whether it's someone sitting on the sidewalk with a sign, loitering outside of the neighborhood shopping center or Union Station, or even walking around approaching people just trying to get from point A to B trying to yell through pedestrians' headphones. Yesterday, I was coming home from work, and there was a man, either mentally ill or visibly intoxicated, stumbling around a busy intersection near my apartment, bumping into people and scaring little kids begging people for a lighter. You could criticize me for having small town sensibilities, but I think I have a pretty high tolerance for just general shit going on around me. I hate NIMBYism. I would never call the cops on my neighbors when they have 25 people standing in their front yard blasting music and having a barbecue. I would never confront the motorcycle enthusiast living down the block who seems to love showing off how loud his engine is. Those battles aren't worth it to me. They belong in the neighborhood. They're entitled to do what they want on their property. So back to the progressive version of Stop and Frisk. I think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn't even take into account the amount of streetside camps, some of which are under remote overpasses but that also are located in some of the busiest intersections in the city. Police should have been able to confront the aforementioned guy stumbling around looking for a lighter. Because of my total lack of knowledge on how homelessness is normally dealt with, I'm probably easily impressionable to good ideas that could change my view, both from a more aggressive perspective or a progressive one. But at this point, it appears to me that the attempt to operate as a progressive city is turing public spaces in D.C. into a dirty free for all where addicts and the mentally ill are free to roam around bothering people and getting in everyone's way. I'd like to be able to walk from my house to the metro stop and then from the next stop to my office without having 10+ people begging me for money, of which I don't have any to give. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fhcqc73","c_root_id_B":"fhcqklz","created_at_utc_A":1581468521,"created_at_utc_B":1581468672,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"So you really want someone to change your mind that something needs to be done about high rates of homelessness? One flaw I y out argument where you would have the police Ish around the homeless, telling them where they can not stay is futile. What if they refuse? You do what? Fine them? It won\u2019t get paid. Jail them? So fill up cells to what end?","human_ref_B":"Police telling homeless people to not stand somewhere for a prolonged period of time won\u2019t fix anything that\u2019s for sure. For mentally ill homeless we need agencies to get them the professional help they need before they can even become productive members of society.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":151.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"f2iatq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Washington D.C. needs to do something about its homeless and panhandling problem before it becomes unmanageable like in San Francisco The first thing I need to say is that I'm by no means an expert in policies used to manage homelessness crises. For that reason this post is going to be pretty vague in terms of what those solutions are. In my ideal world those solutions would be ethical, progressive, and would not involve forcing these people to move far away just for the sake of getting them out of the city. I know there is an extremely bad vibe around the name of this policy, but I suppose the bet solution that I can think of is something like a much less aggressive, racist, and invasive version of stop and frisk. For some context, I'm the typical D.C. implant who was fortunate enough to get a job and be able to move here right out of college. I've lived in Washington for 8 months in a diverse, lively neighborhood that I really enjoy. When I got here, I kind of just assumed that a lot of homeless people was a normal part of living in a big city. Recently, however, I've had a handful of bad experiences both in my neighborhood and downtown that just annoyed the shit out of me and I could imagine if I weren't a fairly big guy, would make me feel unsafe. There are days where I feel like I can't walk 100 feet without being asked for something, whether it's someone sitting on the sidewalk with a sign, loitering outside of the neighborhood shopping center or Union Station, or even walking around approaching people just trying to get from point A to B trying to yell through pedestrians' headphones. Yesterday, I was coming home from work, and there was a man, either mentally ill or visibly intoxicated, stumbling around a busy intersection near my apartment, bumping into people and scaring little kids begging people for a lighter. You could criticize me for having small town sensibilities, but I think I have a pretty high tolerance for just general shit going on around me. I hate NIMBYism. I would never call the cops on my neighbors when they have 25 people standing in their front yard blasting music and having a barbecue. I would never confront the motorcycle enthusiast living down the block who seems to love showing off how loud his engine is. Those battles aren't worth it to me. They belong in the neighborhood. They're entitled to do what they want on their property. So back to the progressive version of Stop and Frisk. I think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn't even take into account the amount of streetside camps, some of which are under remote overpasses but that also are located in some of the busiest intersections in the city. Police should have been able to confront the aforementioned guy stumbling around looking for a lighter. Because of my total lack of knowledge on how homelessness is normally dealt with, I'm probably easily impressionable to good ideas that could change my view, both from a more aggressive perspective or a progressive one. But at this point, it appears to me that the attempt to operate as a progressive city is turing public spaces in D.C. into a dirty free for all where addicts and the mentally ill are free to roam around bothering people and getting in everyone's way. I'd like to be able to walk from my house to the metro stop and then from the next stop to my office without having 10+ people begging me for money, of which I don't have any to give. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fhcq575","c_root_id_B":"fhcx7qk","created_at_utc_A":1581468398,"created_at_utc_B":1581472751,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This applies to every major city that has substantial infrastructure and support for its homeless population \u2014 there will be a lot of homeless people where homelessness is well supported. Do you think cities should stop supporting (sheltering\/feeding\/housing\/money) the homeless?","human_ref_B":"Viewing them as a problem that needs to be solved rather than viewing them as people who need help is the major difference I see.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4353.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"f2iatq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Washington D.C. needs to do something about its homeless and panhandling problem before it becomes unmanageable like in San Francisco The first thing I need to say is that I'm by no means an expert in policies used to manage homelessness crises. For that reason this post is going to be pretty vague in terms of what those solutions are. In my ideal world those solutions would be ethical, progressive, and would not involve forcing these people to move far away just for the sake of getting them out of the city. I know there is an extremely bad vibe around the name of this policy, but I suppose the bet solution that I can think of is something like a much less aggressive, racist, and invasive version of stop and frisk. For some context, I'm the typical D.C. implant who was fortunate enough to get a job and be able to move here right out of college. I've lived in Washington for 8 months in a diverse, lively neighborhood that I really enjoy. When I got here, I kind of just assumed that a lot of homeless people was a normal part of living in a big city. Recently, however, I've had a handful of bad experiences both in my neighborhood and downtown that just annoyed the shit out of me and I could imagine if I weren't a fairly big guy, would make me feel unsafe. There are days where I feel like I can't walk 100 feet without being asked for something, whether it's someone sitting on the sidewalk with a sign, loitering outside of the neighborhood shopping center or Union Station, or even walking around approaching people just trying to get from point A to B trying to yell through pedestrians' headphones. Yesterday, I was coming home from work, and there was a man, either mentally ill or visibly intoxicated, stumbling around a busy intersection near my apartment, bumping into people and scaring little kids begging people for a lighter. You could criticize me for having small town sensibilities, but I think I have a pretty high tolerance for just general shit going on around me. I hate NIMBYism. I would never call the cops on my neighbors when they have 25 people standing in their front yard blasting music and having a barbecue. I would never confront the motorcycle enthusiast living down the block who seems to love showing off how loud his engine is. Those battles aren't worth it to me. They belong in the neighborhood. They're entitled to do what they want on their property. So back to the progressive version of Stop and Frisk. I think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn't even take into account the amount of streetside camps, some of which are under remote overpasses but that also are located in some of the busiest intersections in the city. Police should have been able to confront the aforementioned guy stumbling around looking for a lighter. Because of my total lack of knowledge on how homelessness is normally dealt with, I'm probably easily impressionable to good ideas that could change my view, both from a more aggressive perspective or a progressive one. But at this point, it appears to me that the attempt to operate as a progressive city is turing public spaces in D.C. into a dirty free for all where addicts and the mentally ill are free to roam around bothering people and getting in everyone's way. I'd like to be able to walk from my house to the metro stop and then from the next stop to my office without having 10+ people begging me for money, of which I don't have any to give. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fhcx7qk","c_root_id_B":"fhcqc73","created_at_utc_A":1581472751,"created_at_utc_B":1581468521,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Viewing them as a problem that needs to be solved rather than viewing them as people who need help is the major difference I see.","human_ref_B":"So you really want someone to change your mind that something needs to be done about high rates of homelessness? One flaw I y out argument where you would have the police Ish around the homeless, telling them where they can not stay is futile. What if they refuse? You do what? Fine them? It won\u2019t get paid. Jail them? So fill up cells to what end?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4230.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"f2iatq","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: Washington D.C. needs to do something about its homeless and panhandling problem before it becomes unmanageable like in San Francisco The first thing I need to say is that I'm by no means an expert in policies used to manage homelessness crises. For that reason this post is going to be pretty vague in terms of what those solutions are. In my ideal world those solutions would be ethical, progressive, and would not involve forcing these people to move far away just for the sake of getting them out of the city. I know there is an extremely bad vibe around the name of this policy, but I suppose the bet solution that I can think of is something like a much less aggressive, racist, and invasive version of stop and frisk. For some context, I'm the typical D.C. implant who was fortunate enough to get a job and be able to move here right out of college. I've lived in Washington for 8 months in a diverse, lively neighborhood that I really enjoy. When I got here, I kind of just assumed that a lot of homeless people was a normal part of living in a big city. Recently, however, I've had a handful of bad experiences both in my neighborhood and downtown that just annoyed the shit out of me and I could imagine if I weren't a fairly big guy, would make me feel unsafe. There are days where I feel like I can't walk 100 feet without being asked for something, whether it's someone sitting on the sidewalk with a sign, loitering outside of the neighborhood shopping center or Union Station, or even walking around approaching people just trying to get from point A to B trying to yell through pedestrians' headphones. Yesterday, I was coming home from work, and there was a man, either mentally ill or visibly intoxicated, stumbling around a busy intersection near my apartment, bumping into people and scaring little kids begging people for a lighter. You could criticize me for having small town sensibilities, but I think I have a pretty high tolerance for just general shit going on around me. I hate NIMBYism. I would never call the cops on my neighbors when they have 25 people standing in their front yard blasting music and having a barbecue. I would never confront the motorcycle enthusiast living down the block who seems to love showing off how loud his engine is. Those battles aren't worth it to me. They belong in the neighborhood. They're entitled to do what they want on their property. So back to the progressive version of Stop and Frisk. I think the only real solution to getting homeless people off the streets is if police are allowed to tell people they can't stand or sit in certain areas for a prolonged period of time. That doesn't even take into account the amount of streetside camps, some of which are under remote overpasses but that also are located in some of the busiest intersections in the city. Police should have been able to confront the aforementioned guy stumbling around looking for a lighter. Because of my total lack of knowledge on how homelessness is normally dealt with, I'm probably easily impressionable to good ideas that could change my view, both from a more aggressive perspective or a progressive one. But at this point, it appears to me that the attempt to operate as a progressive city is turing public spaces in D.C. into a dirty free for all where addicts and the mentally ill are free to roam around bothering people and getting in everyone's way. I'd like to be able to walk from my house to the metro stop and then from the next stop to my office without having 10+ people begging me for money, of which I don't have any to give. CMV!","c_root_id_A":"fhcsu02","c_root_id_B":"fhcx7qk","created_at_utc_A":1581470097,"created_at_utc_B":1581472751,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The easiest solution to homelessness is to give them houses. I know that sounds kind of in serious but this is how it works in Finland https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/cities\/2019\/jun\/03\/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness and giving people a solid and consistent basis to build their lives up from without any preconditions can help solve these problems. Your proposed \"solution\" is merely aesthetic and all it achieves is making homeless people less seen at best and at worst can materially harm their ability to form community or get charity from the public making restricting their access to resources either forcing them to commit crime to survive or not surviving.","human_ref_B":"Viewing them as a problem that needs to be solved rather than viewing them as people who need help is the major difference I see.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2654.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"7nvb7x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Small Electronics manufacturers should be required to adopt and **use** a standard charging system so that all cords work on all devices. From my understanding, Europe passed legislation requiring all cell phones in Europe to adhere to a standardized charging system, and as a result all devices in Europe must be sold with a USB-compatible charger. This is why iPhones in Europe are sold with Micro-USB adapters. The benefits of these regulations are that they minimize waste, as before the rise of modern cell phones, every cell phone manufacturer invented their own custom charger. My view is that this regulation does not go far enough, and an expanded version should be adopted by the US. Specifically, all handheld devices should be required to adhere to an open charging system. Importantly: I am indifferent as to which system this should be. But one system I have come to appreciate recently are those magnetic-charging adapters that you see on Amazon and advertised all over the place, like these. Magnetic connectors are highly convenient, and can bring the advantages of USB-C and Lightning (like 2-orientation connections) to micro-USB devices. Effectively, this would work on devices ranging from laptops and tablets to headphones and smartphones. There are, however, devices that should not be *required* to adhere to a unified charging standard. Laptops can have significant power draws. Waterproof-required devices like Smartwatches may require wireless charging. Exceptionally small devices like single-headphone headphones (such as Apple Airpods, etc) may not be able to adhere to whatever standard is adopted, and should be allowed to design there own charger. Additionally, these standards change with frequency, so the charging standard should have planned updates with a universal adoption of a new standard every 10 years or less, preferably with backwards\/forwards compatibility for one generation whenever possible. But: If it's a smartphone, tablet or e-reader with a built in rechargeable battery, I should be able to use the same cord to charge it for a long period of time, whether that manufacturer is Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, or anyone else. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ds4v7a5","c_root_id_B":"ds4r8lz","created_at_utc_A":1514999447,"created_at_utc_B":1514995215,"score_A":31,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Everyone is switching to USB C now, so there you go. One port to rule them all. The problem before was that earlier ports were more limited in functionality. So if you were a computer manufacturer and you needed to include a 60 watt charger, the standard connector was different then the 80 watt connector. This was important because if you use the wrong power on each device you could potentially harm the battery and cause a fire. Also, data ports were all different because they had different purposes. USB couldn\u2019t do HD video output. Do you need HDMI or Display Port. Display Port had super low royalty fees but no TV used Display Port, so most manufacturers used HDMI because that\u2019s what all the TVs had. If you wanted super fast data, you used thunderbolt, but that was Apple\u2019s thing and royalties were super high. Now, devices can manage their own power, so a 80 watt charger on a 60 watt device won\u2019t kill the battery. USB C does all the various data things and Apple\/Intel dropped the royalties on Thunderbolt 3 (which uses the USB C shell) and includes compatibility on all new intel processors. So USB C will actually replace everything because the cable itself can handle anything between 5-100 watts and the devices can tell the power adapter to change wattage based on device needs and the cable can simultaneously handle data needs at a higher level than USB and HDMI. It also can do audio for headphones. So the only thing it won\u2019t replace is SD cards which likely will go away as cameras get high speed USB C ports that allow fast transfer directly from the camera and the camera itself becomes the SD card reader adapter. Also, some companies had to use their own proprietary connectors to limit piracy and other unauthorized use. But now that can be accomplished just as easily with software so they can use the industry standard which is USB C now. So it\u2019s not so much that government needs to regulate this as much as it is that technology is maturing and allowing standardization here. This will also make the adoption of the next cable even quicker since it will have to be as multipurpose as the existing USB C cable and have low licensing fees. That won\u2019t happen for 10-15 years since USB C is designed to evolve just like how USB went from 1.0 in 1997 to 3.2 to today. USB C is already getting updates that will allow new devices to transfer at 10Gb\/s instead of 5Gb\/s. And since thunderbolt is included in any new intel device it\u2019s up to 40Gb\/s anyway with the same connector.","human_ref_B":"Innovation happens because of competition. Forcing everyone to do things the same hinders advancements in technology. USB-C exists specifically because manufacturers were NOT required to adhere to a standard. And it's better than what the standard definitely would have been. Same with HDMI and countless other innovations that have happened because they were required to adhere to an inferior standard. You have the right to set up your life exactly the way you want to. If you want devices that all use the same charging cable, then just buy devices that all use the same charging cable. There is no reason to deprive ME of the right to do what I want to do.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4232.0,"score_ratio":1.8235294118} {"post_id":"7nvb7x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Small Electronics manufacturers should be required to adopt and **use** a standard charging system so that all cords work on all devices. From my understanding, Europe passed legislation requiring all cell phones in Europe to adhere to a standardized charging system, and as a result all devices in Europe must be sold with a USB-compatible charger. This is why iPhones in Europe are sold with Micro-USB adapters. The benefits of these regulations are that they minimize waste, as before the rise of modern cell phones, every cell phone manufacturer invented their own custom charger. My view is that this regulation does not go far enough, and an expanded version should be adopted by the US. Specifically, all handheld devices should be required to adhere to an open charging system. Importantly: I am indifferent as to which system this should be. But one system I have come to appreciate recently are those magnetic-charging adapters that you see on Amazon and advertised all over the place, like these. Magnetic connectors are highly convenient, and can bring the advantages of USB-C and Lightning (like 2-orientation connections) to micro-USB devices. Effectively, this would work on devices ranging from laptops and tablets to headphones and smartphones. There are, however, devices that should not be *required* to adhere to a unified charging standard. Laptops can have significant power draws. Waterproof-required devices like Smartwatches may require wireless charging. Exceptionally small devices like single-headphone headphones (such as Apple Airpods, etc) may not be able to adhere to whatever standard is adopted, and should be allowed to design there own charger. Additionally, these standards change with frequency, so the charging standard should have planned updates with a universal adoption of a new standard every 10 years or less, preferably with backwards\/forwards compatibility for one generation whenever possible. But: If it's a smartphone, tablet or e-reader with a built in rechargeable battery, I should be able to use the same cord to charge it for a long period of time, whether that manufacturer is Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, or anyone else. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ds4r5kt","c_root_id_B":"ds4v7a5","created_at_utc_A":1514995123,"created_at_utc_B":1514999447,"score_A":9,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"This stifles innovation. If there is a required adopted form of charging, then companies will just race to the bottom because there is no longer an opprotunity benefit to improve charging technology. The improvement of charging technology is extremely important, especially if you're trying to tackle the waste issue, because chargers in general are essentially a point of failure on all cellphones. The first thing that wears out when you buy a new in box cell phone is hands down the charger. The first thing that gets damaged on a cellphone through regular use is the charging port. If you want to reduce waste, you need to incent businesses to get us passed the point of where we are at, and the fastest way to do that is by incenting them to make a profit. By putting legislature in place you are essentially detering research and development. If a phone can't be released outside of government specifications, then nobody is going to rock the boat because when the government creates an inefficiency it's the consumers that have to live with it, not the companies. It's also this type of legislation that incents rent seeking behavior, because as an environmental cost, companies like apple are going to pay $500 to legislators to try and make $1000 by getting laws passed instead of improving their company. When they could just spend that money making product improvements anyway. Wired charging is already on its way out. Then cabled charging won't even be a thing. I imagine the largest problem with wireless charging is the speed, once it is comparable to cabled charging, cables are on the way out anyway.","human_ref_B":"Everyone is switching to USB C now, so there you go. One port to rule them all. The problem before was that earlier ports were more limited in functionality. So if you were a computer manufacturer and you needed to include a 60 watt charger, the standard connector was different then the 80 watt connector. This was important because if you use the wrong power on each device you could potentially harm the battery and cause a fire. Also, data ports were all different because they had different purposes. USB couldn\u2019t do HD video output. Do you need HDMI or Display Port. Display Port had super low royalty fees but no TV used Display Port, so most manufacturers used HDMI because that\u2019s what all the TVs had. If you wanted super fast data, you used thunderbolt, but that was Apple\u2019s thing and royalties were super high. Now, devices can manage their own power, so a 80 watt charger on a 60 watt device won\u2019t kill the battery. USB C does all the various data things and Apple\/Intel dropped the royalties on Thunderbolt 3 (which uses the USB C shell) and includes compatibility on all new intel processors. So USB C will actually replace everything because the cable itself can handle anything between 5-100 watts and the devices can tell the power adapter to change wattage based on device needs and the cable can simultaneously handle data needs at a higher level than USB and HDMI. It also can do audio for headphones. So the only thing it won\u2019t replace is SD cards which likely will go away as cameras get high speed USB C ports that allow fast transfer directly from the camera and the camera itself becomes the SD card reader adapter. Also, some companies had to use their own proprietary connectors to limit piracy and other unauthorized use. But now that can be accomplished just as easily with software so they can use the industry standard which is USB C now. So it\u2019s not so much that government needs to regulate this as much as it is that technology is maturing and allowing standardization here. This will also make the adoption of the next cable even quicker since it will have to be as multipurpose as the existing USB C cable and have low licensing fees. That won\u2019t happen for 10-15 years since USB C is designed to evolve just like how USB went from 1.0 in 1997 to 3.2 to today. USB C is already getting updates that will allow new devices to transfer at 10Gb\/s instead of 5Gb\/s. And since thunderbolt is included in any new intel device it\u2019s up to 40Gb\/s anyway with the same connector.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4324.0,"score_ratio":3.4444444444} {"post_id":"7nvb7x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Small Electronics manufacturers should be required to adopt and **use** a standard charging system so that all cords work on all devices. From my understanding, Europe passed legislation requiring all cell phones in Europe to adhere to a standardized charging system, and as a result all devices in Europe must be sold with a USB-compatible charger. This is why iPhones in Europe are sold with Micro-USB adapters. The benefits of these regulations are that they minimize waste, as before the rise of modern cell phones, every cell phone manufacturer invented their own custom charger. My view is that this regulation does not go far enough, and an expanded version should be adopted by the US. Specifically, all handheld devices should be required to adhere to an open charging system. Importantly: I am indifferent as to which system this should be. But one system I have come to appreciate recently are those magnetic-charging adapters that you see on Amazon and advertised all over the place, like these. Magnetic connectors are highly convenient, and can bring the advantages of USB-C and Lightning (like 2-orientation connections) to micro-USB devices. Effectively, this would work on devices ranging from laptops and tablets to headphones and smartphones. There are, however, devices that should not be *required* to adhere to a unified charging standard. Laptops can have significant power draws. Waterproof-required devices like Smartwatches may require wireless charging. Exceptionally small devices like single-headphone headphones (such as Apple Airpods, etc) may not be able to adhere to whatever standard is adopted, and should be allowed to design there own charger. Additionally, these standards change with frequency, so the charging standard should have planned updates with a universal adoption of a new standard every 10 years or less, preferably with backwards\/forwards compatibility for one generation whenever possible. But: If it's a smartphone, tablet or e-reader with a built in rechargeable battery, I should be able to use the same cord to charge it for a long period of time, whether that manufacturer is Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, or anyone else. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ds4qu4q","c_root_id_B":"ds4v7a5","created_at_utc_A":1514994775,"created_at_utc_B":1514999447,"score_A":9,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"I don't think this regulation would do anything but make Apple switch. Everyone else is generally very good and using standards. If customers want to not buy a bunch of new cords they don't have to buy Apple, they can switch to a company that uses standards. Beyond that you're really just asking to regulate for a small convenience, as most regulations lag behind innovation it seems more trouble than it's worth.","human_ref_B":"Everyone is switching to USB C now, so there you go. One port to rule them all. The problem before was that earlier ports were more limited in functionality. So if you were a computer manufacturer and you needed to include a 60 watt charger, the standard connector was different then the 80 watt connector. This was important because if you use the wrong power on each device you could potentially harm the battery and cause a fire. Also, data ports were all different because they had different purposes. USB couldn\u2019t do HD video output. Do you need HDMI or Display Port. Display Port had super low royalty fees but no TV used Display Port, so most manufacturers used HDMI because that\u2019s what all the TVs had. If you wanted super fast data, you used thunderbolt, but that was Apple\u2019s thing and royalties were super high. Now, devices can manage their own power, so a 80 watt charger on a 60 watt device won\u2019t kill the battery. USB C does all the various data things and Apple\/Intel dropped the royalties on Thunderbolt 3 (which uses the USB C shell) and includes compatibility on all new intel processors. So USB C will actually replace everything because the cable itself can handle anything between 5-100 watts and the devices can tell the power adapter to change wattage based on device needs and the cable can simultaneously handle data needs at a higher level than USB and HDMI. It also can do audio for headphones. So the only thing it won\u2019t replace is SD cards which likely will go away as cameras get high speed USB C ports that allow fast transfer directly from the camera and the camera itself becomes the SD card reader adapter. Also, some companies had to use their own proprietary connectors to limit piracy and other unauthorized use. But now that can be accomplished just as easily with software so they can use the industry standard which is USB C now. So it\u2019s not so much that government needs to regulate this as much as it is that technology is maturing and allowing standardization here. This will also make the adoption of the next cable even quicker since it will have to be as multipurpose as the existing USB C cable and have low licensing fees. That won\u2019t happen for 10-15 years since USB C is designed to evolve just like how USB went from 1.0 in 1997 to 3.2 to today. USB C is already getting updates that will allow new devices to transfer at 10Gb\/s instead of 5Gb\/s. And since thunderbolt is included in any new intel device it\u2019s up to 40Gb\/s anyway with the same connector.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4672.0,"score_ratio":3.4444444444} {"post_id":"7nvb7x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Small Electronics manufacturers should be required to adopt and **use** a standard charging system so that all cords work on all devices. From my understanding, Europe passed legislation requiring all cell phones in Europe to adhere to a standardized charging system, and as a result all devices in Europe must be sold with a USB-compatible charger. This is why iPhones in Europe are sold with Micro-USB adapters. The benefits of these regulations are that they minimize waste, as before the rise of modern cell phones, every cell phone manufacturer invented their own custom charger. My view is that this regulation does not go far enough, and an expanded version should be adopted by the US. Specifically, all handheld devices should be required to adhere to an open charging system. Importantly: I am indifferent as to which system this should be. But one system I have come to appreciate recently are those magnetic-charging adapters that you see on Amazon and advertised all over the place, like these. Magnetic connectors are highly convenient, and can bring the advantages of USB-C and Lightning (like 2-orientation connections) to micro-USB devices. Effectively, this would work on devices ranging from laptops and tablets to headphones and smartphones. There are, however, devices that should not be *required* to adhere to a unified charging standard. Laptops can have significant power draws. Waterproof-required devices like Smartwatches may require wireless charging. Exceptionally small devices like single-headphone headphones (such as Apple Airpods, etc) may not be able to adhere to whatever standard is adopted, and should be allowed to design there own charger. Additionally, these standards change with frequency, so the charging standard should have planned updates with a universal adoption of a new standard every 10 years or less, preferably with backwards\/forwards compatibility for one generation whenever possible. But: If it's a smartphone, tablet or e-reader with a built in rechargeable battery, I should be able to use the same cord to charge it for a long period of time, whether that manufacturer is Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, or anyone else. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ds4tm5s","c_root_id_B":"ds4v7a5","created_at_utc_A":1514997800,"created_at_utc_B":1514999447,"score_A":5,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"This kind of regulation has the unintended consequence of potentially stifling innovation. Yes the micro USB seems to work, but what if a different configuration allows for much faster charging or some unknown benefit that we can't imagine at the moment? Many companies choose to use the same kind of charging because it is a convenience feature that adds value to their customers, but forcing a company to make that decision destroys innovation and competition.","human_ref_B":"Everyone is switching to USB C now, so there you go. One port to rule them all. The problem before was that earlier ports were more limited in functionality. So if you were a computer manufacturer and you needed to include a 60 watt charger, the standard connector was different then the 80 watt connector. This was important because if you use the wrong power on each device you could potentially harm the battery and cause a fire. Also, data ports were all different because they had different purposes. USB couldn\u2019t do HD video output. Do you need HDMI or Display Port. Display Port had super low royalty fees but no TV used Display Port, so most manufacturers used HDMI because that\u2019s what all the TVs had. If you wanted super fast data, you used thunderbolt, but that was Apple\u2019s thing and royalties were super high. Now, devices can manage their own power, so a 80 watt charger on a 60 watt device won\u2019t kill the battery. USB C does all the various data things and Apple\/Intel dropped the royalties on Thunderbolt 3 (which uses the USB C shell) and includes compatibility on all new intel processors. So USB C will actually replace everything because the cable itself can handle anything between 5-100 watts and the devices can tell the power adapter to change wattage based on device needs and the cable can simultaneously handle data needs at a higher level than USB and HDMI. It also can do audio for headphones. So the only thing it won\u2019t replace is SD cards which likely will go away as cameras get high speed USB C ports that allow fast transfer directly from the camera and the camera itself becomes the SD card reader adapter. Also, some companies had to use their own proprietary connectors to limit piracy and other unauthorized use. But now that can be accomplished just as easily with software so they can use the industry standard which is USB C now. So it\u2019s not so much that government needs to regulate this as much as it is that technology is maturing and allowing standardization here. This will also make the adoption of the next cable even quicker since it will have to be as multipurpose as the existing USB C cable and have low licensing fees. That won\u2019t happen for 10-15 years since USB C is designed to evolve just like how USB went from 1.0 in 1997 to 3.2 to today. USB C is already getting updates that will allow new devices to transfer at 10Gb\/s instead of 5Gb\/s. And since thunderbolt is included in any new intel device it\u2019s up to 40Gb\/s anyway with the same connector.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1647.0,"score_ratio":6.2} {"post_id":"7nvb7x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Small Electronics manufacturers should be required to adopt and **use** a standard charging system so that all cords work on all devices. From my understanding, Europe passed legislation requiring all cell phones in Europe to adhere to a standardized charging system, and as a result all devices in Europe must be sold with a USB-compatible charger. This is why iPhones in Europe are sold with Micro-USB adapters. The benefits of these regulations are that they minimize waste, as before the rise of modern cell phones, every cell phone manufacturer invented their own custom charger. My view is that this regulation does not go far enough, and an expanded version should be adopted by the US. Specifically, all handheld devices should be required to adhere to an open charging system. Importantly: I am indifferent as to which system this should be. But one system I have come to appreciate recently are those magnetic-charging adapters that you see on Amazon and advertised all over the place, like these. Magnetic connectors are highly convenient, and can bring the advantages of USB-C and Lightning (like 2-orientation connections) to micro-USB devices. Effectively, this would work on devices ranging from laptops and tablets to headphones and smartphones. There are, however, devices that should not be *required* to adhere to a unified charging standard. Laptops can have significant power draws. Waterproof-required devices like Smartwatches may require wireless charging. Exceptionally small devices like single-headphone headphones (such as Apple Airpods, etc) may not be able to adhere to whatever standard is adopted, and should be allowed to design there own charger. Additionally, these standards change with frequency, so the charging standard should have planned updates with a universal adoption of a new standard every 10 years or less, preferably with backwards\/forwards compatibility for one generation whenever possible. But: If it's a smartphone, tablet or e-reader with a built in rechargeable battery, I should be able to use the same cord to charge it for a long period of time, whether that manufacturer is Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, or anyone else. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ds4r8lz","c_root_id_B":"ds4r5kt","created_at_utc_A":1514995215,"created_at_utc_B":1514995123,"score_A":17,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Innovation happens because of competition. Forcing everyone to do things the same hinders advancements in technology. USB-C exists specifically because manufacturers were NOT required to adhere to a standard. And it's better than what the standard definitely would have been. Same with HDMI and countless other innovations that have happened because they were required to adhere to an inferior standard. You have the right to set up your life exactly the way you want to. If you want devices that all use the same charging cable, then just buy devices that all use the same charging cable. There is no reason to deprive ME of the right to do what I want to do.","human_ref_B":"This stifles innovation. If there is a required adopted form of charging, then companies will just race to the bottom because there is no longer an opprotunity benefit to improve charging technology. The improvement of charging technology is extremely important, especially if you're trying to tackle the waste issue, because chargers in general are essentially a point of failure on all cellphones. The first thing that wears out when you buy a new in box cell phone is hands down the charger. The first thing that gets damaged on a cellphone through regular use is the charging port. If you want to reduce waste, you need to incent businesses to get us passed the point of where we are at, and the fastest way to do that is by incenting them to make a profit. By putting legislature in place you are essentially detering research and development. If a phone can't be released outside of government specifications, then nobody is going to rock the boat because when the government creates an inefficiency it's the consumers that have to live with it, not the companies. It's also this type of legislation that incents rent seeking behavior, because as an environmental cost, companies like apple are going to pay $500 to legislators to try and make $1000 by getting laws passed instead of improving their company. When they could just spend that money making product improvements anyway. Wired charging is already on its way out. Then cabled charging won't even be a thing. I imagine the largest problem with wireless charging is the speed, once it is comparable to cabled charging, cables are on the way out anyway.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":92.0,"score_ratio":1.8888888889} {"post_id":"7nvb7x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Small Electronics manufacturers should be required to adopt and **use** a standard charging system so that all cords work on all devices. From my understanding, Europe passed legislation requiring all cell phones in Europe to adhere to a standardized charging system, and as a result all devices in Europe must be sold with a USB-compatible charger. This is why iPhones in Europe are sold with Micro-USB adapters. The benefits of these regulations are that they minimize waste, as before the rise of modern cell phones, every cell phone manufacturer invented their own custom charger. My view is that this regulation does not go far enough, and an expanded version should be adopted by the US. Specifically, all handheld devices should be required to adhere to an open charging system. Importantly: I am indifferent as to which system this should be. But one system I have come to appreciate recently are those magnetic-charging adapters that you see on Amazon and advertised all over the place, like these. Magnetic connectors are highly convenient, and can bring the advantages of USB-C and Lightning (like 2-orientation connections) to micro-USB devices. Effectively, this would work on devices ranging from laptops and tablets to headphones and smartphones. There are, however, devices that should not be *required* to adhere to a unified charging standard. Laptops can have significant power draws. Waterproof-required devices like Smartwatches may require wireless charging. Exceptionally small devices like single-headphone headphones (such as Apple Airpods, etc) may not be able to adhere to whatever standard is adopted, and should be allowed to design there own charger. Additionally, these standards change with frequency, so the charging standard should have planned updates with a universal adoption of a new standard every 10 years or less, preferably with backwards\/forwards compatibility for one generation whenever possible. But: If it's a smartphone, tablet or e-reader with a built in rechargeable battery, I should be able to use the same cord to charge it for a long period of time, whether that manufacturer is Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, or anyone else. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ds4r8lz","c_root_id_B":"ds4qu4q","created_at_utc_A":1514995215,"created_at_utc_B":1514994775,"score_A":17,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Innovation happens because of competition. Forcing everyone to do things the same hinders advancements in technology. USB-C exists specifically because manufacturers were NOT required to adhere to a standard. And it's better than what the standard definitely would have been. Same with HDMI and countless other innovations that have happened because they were required to adhere to an inferior standard. You have the right to set up your life exactly the way you want to. If you want devices that all use the same charging cable, then just buy devices that all use the same charging cable. There is no reason to deprive ME of the right to do what I want to do.","human_ref_B":"I don't think this regulation would do anything but make Apple switch. Everyone else is generally very good and using standards. If customers want to not buy a bunch of new cords they don't have to buy Apple, they can switch to a company that uses standards. Beyond that you're really just asking to regulate for a small convenience, as most regulations lag behind innovation it seems more trouble than it's worth.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":440.0,"score_ratio":1.8888888889} {"post_id":"7nvb7x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Small Electronics manufacturers should be required to adopt and **use** a standard charging system so that all cords work on all devices. From my understanding, Europe passed legislation requiring all cell phones in Europe to adhere to a standardized charging system, and as a result all devices in Europe must be sold with a USB-compatible charger. This is why iPhones in Europe are sold with Micro-USB adapters. The benefits of these regulations are that they minimize waste, as before the rise of modern cell phones, every cell phone manufacturer invented their own custom charger. My view is that this regulation does not go far enough, and an expanded version should be adopted by the US. Specifically, all handheld devices should be required to adhere to an open charging system. Importantly: I am indifferent as to which system this should be. But one system I have come to appreciate recently are those magnetic-charging adapters that you see on Amazon and advertised all over the place, like these. Magnetic connectors are highly convenient, and can bring the advantages of USB-C and Lightning (like 2-orientation connections) to micro-USB devices. Effectively, this would work on devices ranging from laptops and tablets to headphones and smartphones. There are, however, devices that should not be *required* to adhere to a unified charging standard. Laptops can have significant power draws. Waterproof-required devices like Smartwatches may require wireless charging. Exceptionally small devices like single-headphone headphones (such as Apple Airpods, etc) may not be able to adhere to whatever standard is adopted, and should be allowed to design there own charger. Additionally, these standards change with frequency, so the charging standard should have planned updates with a universal adoption of a new standard every 10 years or less, preferably with backwards\/forwards compatibility for one generation whenever possible. But: If it's a smartphone, tablet or e-reader with a built in rechargeable battery, I should be able to use the same cord to charge it for a long period of time, whether that manufacturer is Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, or anyone else. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ds59e6k","c_root_id_B":"ds5ckx4","created_at_utc_A":1515013613,"created_at_utc_B":1515016626,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"USB C Cable Magnetic,Animoeco Lightning+USB C+Micro 3 in 1 Multiple 2.4A Quick Charger Cable USB Nylon Braided For\u00a0iPhone 7 7 plus\/ 6 6s Plus\/iPad Samsung Galaxy S6 S7 S8 plus Lg V20 (gun) https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B0749LWL3K\/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_elutAb7JY2N4G You can currently buy adaptors to convert any phone charge system into your desired magnet charger.","human_ref_B":"Several problems: * Often the non-interchangeability of cords is intentional because of differing current\/voltage\/ripple requirements of devices, and is intended to stop users from accidentally frying their equipment by plugging it into the wrong charging voltage or exposing it to a larger ripple current than intended. * For extremely small devices, the SMPS control system or linear regulator necessary to convert the \"standard\" charging voltage\/current to the desired operational power will result in either unwanted enlarging of devices, inefficient charging or battery usage, and\/or unwanted RF interference. * There really isn't one charging port shape to rule them all, either -- depending on the device's planned uses and design, you have to worry about expected mechanical strain, water\/dust exposure, heat expansion, ESD\/RF exposure, or security flaws, and these things can result in conflicting designs. USB-micro is in fact one of the worst offenders, since it tends to break under strain, doesn't do a great job of keeping water out, tends to expose devices to security threats when connected to an unknown charger, and tends to accumulate debris in both the socket and the connector.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3013.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"7nvb7x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Small Electronics manufacturers should be required to adopt and **use** a standard charging system so that all cords work on all devices. From my understanding, Europe passed legislation requiring all cell phones in Europe to adhere to a standardized charging system, and as a result all devices in Europe must be sold with a USB-compatible charger. This is why iPhones in Europe are sold with Micro-USB adapters. The benefits of these regulations are that they minimize waste, as before the rise of modern cell phones, every cell phone manufacturer invented their own custom charger. My view is that this regulation does not go far enough, and an expanded version should be adopted by the US. Specifically, all handheld devices should be required to adhere to an open charging system. Importantly: I am indifferent as to which system this should be. But one system I have come to appreciate recently are those magnetic-charging adapters that you see on Amazon and advertised all over the place, like these. Magnetic connectors are highly convenient, and can bring the advantages of USB-C and Lightning (like 2-orientation connections) to micro-USB devices. Effectively, this would work on devices ranging from laptops and tablets to headphones and smartphones. There are, however, devices that should not be *required* to adhere to a unified charging standard. Laptops can have significant power draws. Waterproof-required devices like Smartwatches may require wireless charging. Exceptionally small devices like single-headphone headphones (such as Apple Airpods, etc) may not be able to adhere to whatever standard is adopted, and should be allowed to design there own charger. Additionally, these standards change with frequency, so the charging standard should have planned updates with a universal adoption of a new standard every 10 years or less, preferably with backwards\/forwards compatibility for one generation whenever possible. But: If it's a smartphone, tablet or e-reader with a built in rechargeable battery, I should be able to use the same cord to charge it for a long period of time, whether that manufacturer is Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, or anyone else. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ds5fcb5","c_root_id_B":"ds59e6k","created_at_utc_A":1515019528,"created_at_utc_B":1515013613,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What about people who want different things from their device? The requirements of a good ruggadized phone are very different from what people want in a fastion phone. Durability, covienence, charge speed, data transfer rate, waterproofing etc are all apsects that can be further broken down into multiple factors. With the European system all phones are compatible with public or standardized infrastructure of which there is a great deal in Europe. The downside is it is wasted cost for two standards if you only use one.","human_ref_B":"USB C Cable Magnetic,Animoeco Lightning+USB C+Micro 3 in 1 Multiple 2.4A Quick Charger Cable USB Nylon Braided For\u00a0iPhone 7 7 plus\/ 6 6s Plus\/iPad Samsung Galaxy S6 S7 S8 plus Lg V20 (gun) https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B0749LWL3K\/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_elutAb7JY2N4G You can currently buy adaptors to convert any phone charge system into your desired magnet charger.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5915.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"7nvb7x","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: Small Electronics manufacturers should be required to adopt and **use** a standard charging system so that all cords work on all devices. From my understanding, Europe passed legislation requiring all cell phones in Europe to adhere to a standardized charging system, and as a result all devices in Europe must be sold with a USB-compatible charger. This is why iPhones in Europe are sold with Micro-USB adapters. The benefits of these regulations are that they minimize waste, as before the rise of modern cell phones, every cell phone manufacturer invented their own custom charger. My view is that this regulation does not go far enough, and an expanded version should be adopted by the US. Specifically, all handheld devices should be required to adhere to an open charging system. Importantly: I am indifferent as to which system this should be. But one system I have come to appreciate recently are those magnetic-charging adapters that you see on Amazon and advertised all over the place, like these. Magnetic connectors are highly convenient, and can bring the advantages of USB-C and Lightning (like 2-orientation connections) to micro-USB devices. Effectively, this would work on devices ranging from laptops and tablets to headphones and smartphones. There are, however, devices that should not be *required* to adhere to a unified charging standard. Laptops can have significant power draws. Waterproof-required devices like Smartwatches may require wireless charging. Exceptionally small devices like single-headphone headphones (such as Apple Airpods, etc) may not be able to adhere to whatever standard is adopted, and should be allowed to design there own charger. Additionally, these standards change with frequency, so the charging standard should have planned updates with a universal adoption of a new standard every 10 years or less, preferably with backwards\/forwards compatibility for one generation whenever possible. But: If it's a smartphone, tablet or e-reader with a built in rechargeable battery, I should be able to use the same cord to charge it for a long period of time, whether that manufacturer is Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, or anyone else. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ds59e6k","c_root_id_B":"ds5tg78","created_at_utc_A":1515013613,"created_at_utc_B":1515036010,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"USB C Cable Magnetic,Animoeco Lightning+USB C+Micro 3 in 1 Multiple 2.4A Quick Charger Cable USB Nylon Braided For\u00a0iPhone 7 7 plus\/ 6 6s Plus\/iPad Samsung Galaxy S6 S7 S8 plus Lg V20 (gun) https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B0749LWL3K\/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_elutAb7JY2N4G You can currently buy adaptors to convert any phone charge system into your desired magnet charger.","human_ref_B":"That makes too much sense. My life would be convenient. The manufacturers would miss out on making money on proprietary charging products.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22397.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"goy6ru2","c_root_id_B":"goy9fzt","created_at_utc_A":1614403092,"created_at_utc_B":1614404280,"score_A":9,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I thought it would be good to point out that some schools have actually already started to do this: https:\/\/www.wlwt.com\/article\/monroe-schools-cheerleader-uniforms-violate-dress-code\/3498694# https:\/\/www.nydailynews.com\/news\/national\/florida-cheerleaders-barred-wearing-skimpy-uniforms-class-article-1.1439811","human_ref_B":"I shouldn't wear the same attire to work out as I wear at the office. other athlete uniforms than cheerleaders, necessarily, won't meet dress code either. Go watch a track meet. Look, I get being frustrated with dress codes, and I understand that some of the decisions on cheerleader uniforms aren't made for reasons related to athletic performance. I think administrators should work to address both of those concerns. But, there needs to be a different standard of attire for sitting at a desk and engaging in athletics. And cheerleading falls into the latter category.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1188.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"goykq4y","c_root_id_B":"goya0l1","created_at_utc_A":1614412993,"created_at_utc_B":1614404690,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I'm just stuck on #2. If a grown ass man is distracted by a 16 year old thigh then he needs to be removed from that profession to begin with. Also, to expand further on that, rather than asking girls to cover up their own filthy bodies, we should be teaching boys(and girls and grown men apparently) not to sexualize women like that. To me, if a young boy or a grown man is so distracted by a little \"too much\" leg or \"too much\" shoulder that they can't do their job\/school work, then the problem runs a lot deeper than the dress code.","human_ref_B":"One could effectively argue that the normal dress code is unnecessarily oppressive for women, and that at the very least the cheerleading outfits are less puritanical. It all really depends on whether or not you think women have a societal obligation to cover their bodies. If you don\u2019t think that they do, then the default position ought to be that women should wear what they want. Ergo the dress code should be relaxed for normal school attire, and the cheerleading uniforms would be fine as long as the women wearing them were comfortable with it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8303.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"goyafvx","c_root_id_B":"goykq4y","created_at_utc_A":1614405015,"created_at_utc_B":1614412993,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The reasons behind why dress codes for the classroom are good for what\u2019s appropriate in the classroom doesn\u2019t apply to what\u2019s appropriate to wear while cheerleading or during sports or at the beach or while working at a bank or while working as a white water rafting guide or at the grocery store or in your own home or in your bedroom. Students and teachers aren\u2019t focused on education where cheerleaders are cheerleading or during pep rallies, so 2 doesn\u2019t apply. You could argue that cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be allowed to wear their cheerleading uniforms in the classroom, fair enough, but, depending on how often a game day is, it\u2019s that\u2019s not that big of a deal either way.","human_ref_B":"I'm just stuck on #2. If a grown ass man is distracted by a 16 year old thigh then he needs to be removed from that profession to begin with. Also, to expand further on that, rather than asking girls to cover up their own filthy bodies, we should be teaching boys(and girls and grown men apparently) not to sexualize women like that. To me, if a young boy or a grown man is so distracted by a little \"too much\" leg or \"too much\" shoulder that they can't do their job\/school work, then the problem runs a lot deeper than the dress code.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7978.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"goyafvx","c_root_id_B":"goys6ci","created_at_utc_A":1614405015,"created_at_utc_B":1614418079,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The reasons behind why dress codes for the classroom are good for what\u2019s appropriate in the classroom doesn\u2019t apply to what\u2019s appropriate to wear while cheerleading or during sports or at the beach or while working at a bank or while working as a white water rafting guide or at the grocery store or in your own home or in your bedroom. Students and teachers aren\u2019t focused on education where cheerleaders are cheerleading or during pep rallies, so 2 doesn\u2019t apply. You could argue that cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be allowed to wear their cheerleading uniforms in the classroom, fair enough, but, depending on how often a game day is, it\u2019s that\u2019s not that big of a deal either way.","human_ref_B":"What if the purpose of the dress code is not to maintain modesty, but instead to maintain a level of professionality? It makes sense that a school might ask students to dress professionally during the day to maintain a more formal educational environment while loosening those restrictions during more casual after-school events. Think about this applied boys instead of girls. If a school makes boys wear slacks and a button-down shirt to classes, then sweatpants, basketball shorts, or a tank-top wouldn't be allowed during the day not because they are more revealing, but because they are less formal. But they would still be perfectly acceptable to wear in the weight room after school. I agree with you in cases where the dress code enforces a clear double-standard, but it really depends on the intention of the dress code.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13064.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"goyrchz","c_root_id_B":"goys6ci","created_at_utc_A":1614417232,"created_at_utc_B":1614418079,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"When I was in school people didn\u2019t wear their cheerleading uniform in class which I think is the real problem. I haven\u2019t seen a cheerleader uniform that is more revealing than a swim team\u2019s speedo, so I don\u2019t see why one should be allowed but not the other. Just don\u2019t let them wear them class the same way you wouldn\u2019t let people wear their swim team or wresting uniforms.","human_ref_B":"What if the purpose of the dress code is not to maintain modesty, but instead to maintain a level of professionality? It makes sense that a school might ask students to dress professionally during the day to maintain a more formal educational environment while loosening those restrictions during more casual after-school events. Think about this applied boys instead of girls. If a school makes boys wear slacks and a button-down shirt to classes, then sweatpants, basketball shorts, or a tank-top wouldn't be allowed during the day not because they are more revealing, but because they are less formal. But they would still be perfectly acceptable to wear in the weight room after school. I agree with you in cases where the dress code enforces a clear double-standard, but it really depends on the intention of the dress code.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":847.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gp31xuc","c_root_id_B":"goys6ci","created_at_utc_A":1614462237,"created_at_utc_B":1614418079,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I was a cheerleader in high school. Our uniforms absolutely followed our school's dress code. Our uniforms showed no skin except our legs, and if they did, who cares? We worked hard, did stunts, dances, and kicks, and waved our pom-poms to encourage enthusiasm from the crowd. Fuck \"immodesty,\" nothing about what we did was sexual. I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about. You make it sound like we were stripping. Edit: In addition to our main uniform (skirt, shell, and long sleeve compression skirt), we literally wore *track suits* when it got cold. Mm, yeah. Nothing hotter than twerpy, dopey-looking high school girls in baggy sweatpants. \/s Please. As if we're not *already* oversexualized by our society, and under constant scrutiny for just for existing as we are. Girls just wanna have fun.","human_ref_B":"What if the purpose of the dress code is not to maintain modesty, but instead to maintain a level of professionality? It makes sense that a school might ask students to dress professionally during the day to maintain a more formal educational environment while loosening those restrictions during more casual after-school events. Think about this applied boys instead of girls. If a school makes boys wear slacks and a button-down shirt to classes, then sweatpants, basketball shorts, or a tank-top wouldn't be allowed during the day not because they are more revealing, but because they are less formal. But they would still be perfectly acceptable to wear in the weight room after school. I agree with you in cases where the dress code enforces a clear double-standard, but it really depends on the intention of the dress code.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":44158.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gozhanj","c_root_id_B":"goyafvx","created_at_utc_A":1614428188,"created_at_utc_B":1614405015,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Are you basing this on outfits you see in movies? At my school, cheerleaders were totally covered up. Zero cleavage visible, zero midriff showing, long sleeve tops, and knee-length skirts. And I don't blame them. It was fucking cold in football season. Maybe it's different in other places, but their uniforms were pretty far from \"sexy.\"","human_ref_B":"The reasons behind why dress codes for the classroom are good for what\u2019s appropriate in the classroom doesn\u2019t apply to what\u2019s appropriate to wear while cheerleading or during sports or at the beach or while working at a bank or while working as a white water rafting guide or at the grocery store or in your own home or in your bedroom. Students and teachers aren\u2019t focused on education where cheerleaders are cheerleading or during pep rallies, so 2 doesn\u2019t apply. You could argue that cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be allowed to wear their cheerleading uniforms in the classroom, fair enough, but, depending on how often a game day is, it\u2019s that\u2019s not that big of a deal either way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23173.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"goyrchz","c_root_id_B":"gozhanj","created_at_utc_A":1614417232,"created_at_utc_B":1614428188,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"When I was in school people didn\u2019t wear their cheerleading uniform in class which I think is the real problem. I haven\u2019t seen a cheerleader uniform that is more revealing than a swim team\u2019s speedo, so I don\u2019t see why one should be allowed but not the other. Just don\u2019t let them wear them class the same way you wouldn\u2019t let people wear their swim team or wresting uniforms.","human_ref_B":"Are you basing this on outfits you see in movies? At my school, cheerleaders were totally covered up. Zero cleavage visible, zero midriff showing, long sleeve tops, and knee-length skirts. And I don't blame them. It was fucking cold in football season. Maybe it's different in other places, but their uniforms were pretty far from \"sexy.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10956.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gozhanj","c_root_id_B":"gp31xuc","created_at_utc_A":1614428188,"created_at_utc_B":1614462237,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Are you basing this on outfits you see in movies? At my school, cheerleaders were totally covered up. Zero cleavage visible, zero midriff showing, long sleeve tops, and knee-length skirts. And I don't blame them. It was fucking cold in football season. Maybe it's different in other places, but their uniforms were pretty far from \"sexy.\"","human_ref_B":"I was a cheerleader in high school. Our uniforms absolutely followed our school's dress code. Our uniforms showed no skin except our legs, and if they did, who cares? We worked hard, did stunts, dances, and kicks, and waved our pom-poms to encourage enthusiasm from the crowd. Fuck \"immodesty,\" nothing about what we did was sexual. I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about. You make it sound like we were stripping. Edit: In addition to our main uniform (skirt, shell, and long sleeve compression skirt), we literally wore *track suits* when it got cold. Mm, yeah. Nothing hotter than twerpy, dopey-looking high school girls in baggy sweatpants. \/s Please. As if we're not *already* oversexualized by our society, and under constant scrutiny for just for existing as we are. Girls just wanna have fun.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34049.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gozsiyv","c_root_id_B":"goyafvx","created_at_utc_A":1614431284,"created_at_utc_B":1614405015,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Should the girls swim team uniforms also comply with the dress code... or no, since that\u2019s a \u201creal sport\u201d?","human_ref_B":"The reasons behind why dress codes for the classroom are good for what\u2019s appropriate in the classroom doesn\u2019t apply to what\u2019s appropriate to wear while cheerleading or during sports or at the beach or while working at a bank or while working as a white water rafting guide or at the grocery store or in your own home or in your bedroom. Students and teachers aren\u2019t focused on education where cheerleaders are cheerleading or during pep rallies, so 2 doesn\u2019t apply. You could argue that cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be allowed to wear their cheerleading uniforms in the classroom, fair enough, but, depending on how often a game day is, it\u2019s that\u2019s not that big of a deal either way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26269.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"goyrchz","c_root_id_B":"gozsiyv","created_at_utc_A":1614417232,"created_at_utc_B":1614431284,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"When I was in school people didn\u2019t wear their cheerleading uniform in class which I think is the real problem. I haven\u2019t seen a cheerleader uniform that is more revealing than a swim team\u2019s speedo, so I don\u2019t see why one should be allowed but not the other. Just don\u2019t let them wear them class the same way you wouldn\u2019t let people wear their swim team or wresting uniforms.","human_ref_B":"Should the girls swim team uniforms also comply with the dress code... or no, since that\u2019s a \u201creal sport\u201d?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14052.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gozm46i","c_root_id_B":"gozsiyv","created_at_utc_A":1614429800,"created_at_utc_B":1614431284,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. >1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. >2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. >3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Your argument only applies if those are the stated reasons for the dress code. I am a teacher (but not in the US so I don't know the context) and I have never worked in a school where reason 2 has been a stated rationale for the dress code. Is this common in the US?","human_ref_B":"Should the girls swim team uniforms also comply with the dress code... or no, since that\u2019s a \u201creal sport\u201d?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1484.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gp31xuc","c_root_id_B":"gozsiyv","created_at_utc_A":1614462237,"created_at_utc_B":1614431284,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I was a cheerleader in high school. Our uniforms absolutely followed our school's dress code. Our uniforms showed no skin except our legs, and if they did, who cares? We worked hard, did stunts, dances, and kicks, and waved our pom-poms to encourage enthusiasm from the crowd. Fuck \"immodesty,\" nothing about what we did was sexual. I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about. You make it sound like we were stripping. Edit: In addition to our main uniform (skirt, shell, and long sleeve compression skirt), we literally wore *track suits* when it got cold. Mm, yeah. Nothing hotter than twerpy, dopey-looking high school girls in baggy sweatpants. \/s Please. As if we're not *already* oversexualized by our society, and under constant scrutiny for just for existing as we are. Girls just wanna have fun.","human_ref_B":"Should the girls swim team uniforms also comply with the dress code... or no, since that\u2019s a \u201creal sport\u201d?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30953.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gp22rzc","c_root_id_B":"goyafvx","created_at_utc_A":1614452806,"created_at_utc_B":1614405015,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Wait. Girls actually wear skimpy cheerleader outfits to classes? Every day I learn another confusing thing about America. In England we have school uniforms and also don't have sports stadiums in schools.","human_ref_B":"The reasons behind why dress codes for the classroom are good for what\u2019s appropriate in the classroom doesn\u2019t apply to what\u2019s appropriate to wear while cheerleading or during sports or at the beach or while working at a bank or while working as a white water rafting guide or at the grocery store or in your own home or in your bedroom. Students and teachers aren\u2019t focused on education where cheerleaders are cheerleading or during pep rallies, so 2 doesn\u2019t apply. You could argue that cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be allowed to wear their cheerleading uniforms in the classroom, fair enough, but, depending on how often a game day is, it\u2019s that\u2019s not that big of a deal either way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":47791.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"goyrchz","c_root_id_B":"gp22rzc","created_at_utc_A":1614417232,"created_at_utc_B":1614452806,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"When I was in school people didn\u2019t wear their cheerleading uniform in class which I think is the real problem. I haven\u2019t seen a cheerleader uniform that is more revealing than a swim team\u2019s speedo, so I don\u2019t see why one should be allowed but not the other. Just don\u2019t let them wear them class the same way you wouldn\u2019t let people wear their swim team or wresting uniforms.","human_ref_B":"Wait. Girls actually wear skimpy cheerleader outfits to classes? Every day I learn another confusing thing about America. In England we have school uniforms and also don't have sports stadiums in schools.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35574.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gp22rzc","c_root_id_B":"gozm46i","created_at_utc_A":1614452806,"created_at_utc_B":1614429800,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Wait. Girls actually wear skimpy cheerleader outfits to classes? Every day I learn another confusing thing about America. In England we have school uniforms and also don't have sports stadiums in schools.","human_ref_B":">The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. >1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. >2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. >3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Your argument only applies if those are the stated reasons for the dress code. I am a teacher (but not in the US so I don't know the context) and I have never worked in a school where reason 2 has been a stated rationale for the dress code. Is this common in the US?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23006.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gp22rzc","c_root_id_B":"gp31xuc","created_at_utc_A":1614452806,"created_at_utc_B":1614462237,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Wait. Girls actually wear skimpy cheerleader outfits to classes? Every day I learn another confusing thing about America. In England we have school uniforms and also don't have sports stadiums in schools.","human_ref_B":"I was a cheerleader in high school. Our uniforms absolutely followed our school's dress code. Our uniforms showed no skin except our legs, and if they did, who cares? We worked hard, did stunts, dances, and kicks, and waved our pom-poms to encourage enthusiasm from the crowd. Fuck \"immodesty,\" nothing about what we did was sexual. I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about. You make it sound like we were stripping. Edit: In addition to our main uniform (skirt, shell, and long sleeve compression skirt), we literally wore *track suits* when it got cold. Mm, yeah. Nothing hotter than twerpy, dopey-looking high school girls in baggy sweatpants. \/s Please. As if we're not *already* oversexualized by our society, and under constant scrutiny for just for existing as we are. Girls just wanna have fun.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9431.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gp31xuc","c_root_id_B":"goyafvx","created_at_utc_A":1614462237,"created_at_utc_B":1614405015,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I was a cheerleader in high school. Our uniforms absolutely followed our school's dress code. Our uniforms showed no skin except our legs, and if they did, who cares? We worked hard, did stunts, dances, and kicks, and waved our pom-poms to encourage enthusiasm from the crowd. Fuck \"immodesty,\" nothing about what we did was sexual. I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about. You make it sound like we were stripping. Edit: In addition to our main uniform (skirt, shell, and long sleeve compression skirt), we literally wore *track suits* when it got cold. Mm, yeah. Nothing hotter than twerpy, dopey-looking high school girls in baggy sweatpants. \/s Please. As if we're not *already* oversexualized by our society, and under constant scrutiny for just for existing as we are. Girls just wanna have fun.","human_ref_B":"The reasons behind why dress codes for the classroom are good for what\u2019s appropriate in the classroom doesn\u2019t apply to what\u2019s appropriate to wear while cheerleading or during sports or at the beach or while working at a bank or while working as a white water rafting guide or at the grocery store or in your own home or in your bedroom. Students and teachers aren\u2019t focused on education where cheerleaders are cheerleading or during pep rallies, so 2 doesn\u2019t apply. You could argue that cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be allowed to wear their cheerleading uniforms in the classroom, fair enough, but, depending on how often a game day is, it\u2019s that\u2019s not that big of a deal either way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":57222.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gp31xuc","c_root_id_B":"goyrchz","created_at_utc_A":1614462237,"created_at_utc_B":1614417232,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I was a cheerleader in high school. Our uniforms absolutely followed our school's dress code. Our uniforms showed no skin except our legs, and if they did, who cares? We worked hard, did stunts, dances, and kicks, and waved our pom-poms to encourage enthusiasm from the crowd. Fuck \"immodesty,\" nothing about what we did was sexual. I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about. You make it sound like we were stripping. Edit: In addition to our main uniform (skirt, shell, and long sleeve compression skirt), we literally wore *track suits* when it got cold. Mm, yeah. Nothing hotter than twerpy, dopey-looking high school girls in baggy sweatpants. \/s Please. As if we're not *already* oversexualized by our society, and under constant scrutiny for just for existing as we are. Girls just wanna have fun.","human_ref_B":"When I was in school people didn\u2019t wear their cheerleading uniform in class which I think is the real problem. I haven\u2019t seen a cheerleader uniform that is more revealing than a swim team\u2019s speedo, so I don\u2019t see why one should be allowed but not the other. Just don\u2019t let them wear them class the same way you wouldn\u2019t let people wear their swim team or wresting uniforms.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":45005.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ltgnof","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: High school cheerleading uniforms should be required to be in dress code. I don\u2019t really want to debate the effectiveness or necessity of dress codes here, as that\u2019s a conversation for another time. Suffice to say, most high schools have them, and most cheerleading uniforms don\u2019t even come close to meeting the requirements. The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. 1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. 2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. 3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Again, whether you think any of this is necessary is not really my point. My point is this: if everyday classroom attire must meet certain standards, shouldn\u2019t cheerleading uniforms be required to do the same? Cheerleading uniforms are much more revealing than the average student\u2019s spaghetti strap shirt or cleavage-bearing dress. Not only that, but cheerleaders are moving in such a way as to make their already revealing outfits even more immodest. Kicking, jumping, and being thrown in the air make it easier to see up their already short skirts, and the tops always seem to ride up higher. Cheerleaders wear their uniforms on game day usually, meaning that they are sitting in the same classes as other students, completely out of dress code and no one says a word. They also perform at pep rallies during school hours, making the aforementioned problems relevant. And they\u2019re also at games, which are school sanctioned events and on property. If everyone should have to follow these rules, cheerleaders shouldn\u2019t be immune. Disclaimer: I\u2019m not some pervy guy that has trouble not looking up cheerleader\u2019s skirts. I\u2019m actually a woman. And I also have no problem with cheerleaders or cheerleader uniforms. Though I was not a cheerleader myself, I knew and was friends with many of them. A lot of them even agreed with me here, and others I knew for a fact were cheerleaders largely because they enjoyed dressing this way and it was a way to exploit the system. Again, no judgement toward any cheerleaders or other girls who choose to dress in similar manners. It just seems like there\u2019s a very obvious loophole here, and if there\u2019s going to be a dress code, it should apply to everyone.","c_root_id_A":"gp31xuc","c_root_id_B":"gozm46i","created_at_utc_A":1614462237,"created_at_utc_B":1614429800,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I was a cheerleader in high school. Our uniforms absolutely followed our school's dress code. Our uniforms showed no skin except our legs, and if they did, who cares? We worked hard, did stunts, dances, and kicks, and waved our pom-poms to encourage enthusiasm from the crowd. Fuck \"immodesty,\" nothing about what we did was sexual. I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about. You make it sound like we were stripping. Edit: In addition to our main uniform (skirt, shell, and long sleeve compression skirt), we literally wore *track suits* when it got cold. Mm, yeah. Nothing hotter than twerpy, dopey-looking high school girls in baggy sweatpants. \/s Please. As if we're not *already* oversexualized by our society, and under constant scrutiny for just for existing as we are. Girls just wanna have fun.","human_ref_B":">The reasoning behind dress codes is one of a few things. >1. It\u2019s inappropriate for teenagers to dress a certain way. >2. It\u2019s distracting for teachers or other students to be exposed to immodest outfits on girls when they should be focusing on teaching\/learning. >3. Students, like teachers, are supposed to remain professional and put together on school campuses. Your argument only applies if those are the stated reasons for the dress code. I am a teacher (but not in the US so I don't know the context) and I have never worked in a school where reason 2 has been a stated rationale for the dress code. Is this common in the US?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32437.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"lgzksu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: As a conservative, having the Democrats in power right now isn't as bad as people make it out to be Conservatives often complain about how the government takes away their hard earned money and Democrats generally speaking want increased direct stimulus payments, UBI and minimum wage. Democrats are currently so incompetent with passing gun control by going too far and too fast that they effectively are not coming for your guns at the moment. What's all the fuss about? Also, the stock market is doing pretty well ever since Biden took office, and conservatives raved about Trump and how he helped the stock market. So, there seems to be much ado about nothing. It's one thing to see Republicans angry and its another to see Democrats angry.","c_root_id_A":"gmuccli","c_root_id_B":"gmucddv","created_at_utc_A":1612980630,"created_at_utc_B":1612980639,"score_A":6,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"Your entire view hinges on \"as people make it out to be.\" Sure, you can point to some conservatives who have an unrealistic view of reality such that it isn't as bad as they make it out to be. But plenty of conservatives are perfectly realistic, and make it out to be as bad as it is and not worse than it is.","human_ref_B":"This is going to largely depend on what you value as a conservative. If you could elaborate on what your values are it would be a lot more helpful for people to change your view.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333} {"post_id":"lgzksu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: As a conservative, having the Democrats in power right now isn't as bad as people make it out to be Conservatives often complain about how the government takes away their hard earned money and Democrats generally speaking want increased direct stimulus payments, UBI and minimum wage. Democrats are currently so incompetent with passing gun control by going too far and too fast that they effectively are not coming for your guns at the moment. What's all the fuss about? Also, the stock market is doing pretty well ever since Biden took office, and conservatives raved about Trump and how he helped the stock market. So, there seems to be much ado about nothing. It's one thing to see Republicans angry and its another to see Democrats angry.","c_root_id_A":"gmucddv","c_root_id_B":"gmuc3j8","created_at_utc_A":1612980639,"created_at_utc_B":1612980525,"score_A":26,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This is going to largely depend on what you value as a conservative. If you could elaborate on what your values are it would be a lot more helpful for people to change your view.","human_ref_B":">Democrats generally speaking want increased direct stimulus payments, UBI and minimum wage. Ya, so all things conservatives typically oppose. >Democrats are currently so incompetent with passing gun control by going too far and too fast that they effectively are not coming for your guns at the moment. What's all the fuss about? Umm so, > by going too far and too fast is >coming for your guns I don't know what to tell you. >Also, the stock market is doing pretty well ever since Biden took office, and conservatives raved about Trump and how he helped the stock market. Ok. >So, there seems to be much ado about nothing. We're not like spending $1.9 trillion dollars while we're already in debt and continueing to shut down the economy or anything right?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":114.0,"score_ratio":5.2} {"post_id":"lgzksu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: As a conservative, having the Democrats in power right now isn't as bad as people make it out to be Conservatives often complain about how the government takes away their hard earned money and Democrats generally speaking want increased direct stimulus payments, UBI and minimum wage. Democrats are currently so incompetent with passing gun control by going too far and too fast that they effectively are not coming for your guns at the moment. What's all the fuss about? Also, the stock market is doing pretty well ever since Biden took office, and conservatives raved about Trump and how he helped the stock market. So, there seems to be much ado about nothing. It's one thing to see Republicans angry and its another to see Democrats angry.","c_root_id_A":"gmuccli","c_root_id_B":"gmuc3j8","created_at_utc_A":1612980630,"created_at_utc_B":1612980525,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Your entire view hinges on \"as people make it out to be.\" Sure, you can point to some conservatives who have an unrealistic view of reality such that it isn't as bad as they make it out to be. But plenty of conservatives are perfectly realistic, and make it out to be as bad as it is and not worse than it is.","human_ref_B":">Democrats generally speaking want increased direct stimulus payments, UBI and minimum wage. Ya, so all things conservatives typically oppose. >Democrats are currently so incompetent with passing gun control by going too far and too fast that they effectively are not coming for your guns at the moment. What's all the fuss about? Umm so, > by going too far and too fast is >coming for your guns I don't know what to tell you. >Also, the stock market is doing pretty well ever since Biden took office, and conservatives raved about Trump and how he helped the stock market. Ok. >So, there seems to be much ado about nothing. We're not like spending $1.9 trillion dollars while we're already in debt and continueing to shut down the economy or anything right?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":105.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"lgzksu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: As a conservative, having the Democrats in power right now isn't as bad as people make it out to be Conservatives often complain about how the government takes away their hard earned money and Democrats generally speaking want increased direct stimulus payments, UBI and minimum wage. Democrats are currently so incompetent with passing gun control by going too far and too fast that they effectively are not coming for your guns at the moment. What's all the fuss about? Also, the stock market is doing pretty well ever since Biden took office, and conservatives raved about Trump and how he helped the stock market. So, there seems to be much ado about nothing. It's one thing to see Republicans angry and its another to see Democrats angry.","c_root_id_A":"gmuis6v","c_root_id_B":"gmuc3j8","created_at_utc_A":1612983280,"created_at_utc_B":1612980525,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> Democrats are currently so incompetent with passing gun control by going too far and too fast that they effectively are not coming for your guns at the moment. What's all the fuss about? The Democrats have a large range of gun control measures they are proposing, ranging from small, death by a thousand cut measures that undo previous compromises, to bills that are wholesale assaults on the 2nd Amendment. While some of the more draconian bills are probably dead on arrival, with a 50\/50 split it the Senate, it is certainly possible for some of those smaller measures to get through, particularly if they can sneak it into a must pass bill or use the budget reconciliation process (given some gun control measures are structured as taxes\/fees. Likewise, we are counting on the Supreme Court to actually enforce the 2nd Amendment, particularly against a number of Democratic States with very aggressive gun control laws. While it may come to nothing, the push to investigate reforms of the Supreme Court, either court stacking, or fixed terms, are both a threat to the current court Majority we are counting on to fix 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.","human_ref_B":">Democrats generally speaking want increased direct stimulus payments, UBI and minimum wage. Ya, so all things conservatives typically oppose. >Democrats are currently so incompetent with passing gun control by going too far and too fast that they effectively are not coming for your guns at the moment. What's all the fuss about? Umm so, > by going too far and too fast is >coming for your guns I don't know what to tell you. >Also, the stock market is doing pretty well ever since Biden took office, and conservatives raved about Trump and how he helped the stock market. Ok. >So, there seems to be much ado about nothing. We're not like spending $1.9 trillion dollars while we're already in debt and continueing to shut down the economy or anything right?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2755.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"lgzksu","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"CMV: As a conservative, having the Democrats in power right now isn't as bad as people make it out to be Conservatives often complain about how the government takes away their hard earned money and Democrats generally speaking want increased direct stimulus payments, UBI and minimum wage. Democrats are currently so incompetent with passing gun control by going too far and too fast that they effectively are not coming for your guns at the moment. What's all the fuss about? Also, the stock market is doing pretty well ever since Biden took office, and conservatives raved about Trump and how he helped the stock market. So, there seems to be much ado about nothing. It's one thing to see Republicans angry and its another to see Democrats angry.","c_root_id_A":"gmui94x","c_root_id_B":"gmuis6v","created_at_utc_A":1612983058,"created_at_utc_B":1612983280,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I fear people for what they say they want to do when they are seeking or are in a position where they can attempt to accomplish what they want to do. I'm pro-choice. When religious fundie Republicans get into office I don't say \"Well, they probably won't get their pro-life agenda passed, so it's all okay.\" No, now that they are in office it's time to be scared, time to fight extra hard to ensure they don't get what they want. The same thing applies to Biden's absolutely anti-2A gun control agenda (the blatant \"I support the 2nd Amendment\" lies aside). We need to worry, and his agenda needs to be opposed now more strongly than ever. There are already several anti-rights bills in Congress, and Biden will support them. What you are basically saying is that we should be complacent at the very time we need to be most active.","human_ref_B":"> Democrats are currently so incompetent with passing gun control by going too far and too fast that they effectively are not coming for your guns at the moment. What's all the fuss about? The Democrats have a large range of gun control measures they are proposing, ranging from small, death by a thousand cut measures that undo previous compromises, to bills that are wholesale assaults on the 2nd Amendment. While some of the more draconian bills are probably dead on arrival, with a 50\/50 split it the Senate, it is certainly possible for some of those smaller measures to get through, particularly if they can sneak it into a must pass bill or use the budget reconciliation process (given some gun control measures are structured as taxes\/fees. Likewise, we are counting on the Supreme Court to actually enforce the 2nd Amendment, particularly against a number of Democratic States with very aggressive gun control laws. While it may come to nothing, the push to investigate reforms of the Supreme Court, either court stacking, or fixed terms, are both a threat to the current court Majority we are counting on to fix 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":222.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"pbvgfm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Gender is not a social construct I have three presumptions: 1. \"social construct\" has a definition that is functional. 2. We follow the definion of gender as defined by it being a social construct. 3. The world is physical, I ignore \"soul\" \"god\" or other supernatural explanations. Ignoring the multitude of different definitions of social construct, I'm going with things which are either purely created by society, given a property (e.g. money), and those which have a very weak connection to the physical world (e.g. race, genius, art). For the sake of clarity, I don't define slavery as a social construct, as there are animals who partake in slavery (ants enslaving other ants). I'm gonna ignore arguments which confuse words being social constructs with what the word refers to: \"egg\" is not a social construct, the word is. A solid argument for why my definition is faulty will be accepted. Per def, gender is defined by what social norms a person follows and what characteristics they have, if they follow more masculine norms, they're a man, and feminine, they're a woman. This denies people - who might predominantly follow norms and have traits associated with the other sex - their own gender identity. It also denies trans people who might not \"socially\" transition in the sense that they still predominantly follow their sex's norms and still have their sex's traits. I also deny that gender can be abolished: it would just return as we (humans) *need* to classify things, and gender is one great way to classify humans. Gender is different from race in that gender is tightly bound to dimorphism of the sexes, whereas races do not have nearly anything to seperate each of them from each other, and there are large differences between cultures and periodes of how they're defined. Finally, if we do say that gender is a social construct, do we disregard people's feeling that they're born as the right\/wrong sex?","c_root_id_A":"haemnya","c_root_id_B":"haf5yla","created_at_utc_A":1629972061,"created_at_utc_B":1629983987,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Gender is not the same as biology. Being born with a vagina does not automatically mean you want to wear beautiful dresses. Nor does being born with a penis automatically mean that you like hunting. Historically gender roles have been associated with ones sex organs and biology was mutually exclusive with gender. But things are changing.","human_ref_B":"Yeha, like most people involved in this discussion, you just don't know what a social construct is. Which is fine, it's actually an obscure piece of academic philosophy, most people only encounter the term from talking-heads who are trying to manipulate them with false definitions to begin with. Watch this if you care to understand this topic better.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11926.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"pbvgfm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Gender is not a social construct I have three presumptions: 1. \"social construct\" has a definition that is functional. 2. We follow the definion of gender as defined by it being a social construct. 3. The world is physical, I ignore \"soul\" \"god\" or other supernatural explanations. Ignoring the multitude of different definitions of social construct, I'm going with things which are either purely created by society, given a property (e.g. money), and those which have a very weak connection to the physical world (e.g. race, genius, art). For the sake of clarity, I don't define slavery as a social construct, as there are animals who partake in slavery (ants enslaving other ants). I'm gonna ignore arguments which confuse words being social constructs with what the word refers to: \"egg\" is not a social construct, the word is. A solid argument for why my definition is faulty will be accepted. Per def, gender is defined by what social norms a person follows and what characteristics they have, if they follow more masculine norms, they're a man, and feminine, they're a woman. This denies people - who might predominantly follow norms and have traits associated with the other sex - their own gender identity. It also denies trans people who might not \"socially\" transition in the sense that they still predominantly follow their sex's norms and still have their sex's traits. I also deny that gender can be abolished: it would just return as we (humans) *need* to classify things, and gender is one great way to classify humans. Gender is different from race in that gender is tightly bound to dimorphism of the sexes, whereas races do not have nearly anything to seperate each of them from each other, and there are large differences between cultures and periodes of how they're defined. Finally, if we do say that gender is a social construct, do we disregard people's feeling that they're born as the right\/wrong sex?","c_root_id_A":"hakaqbu","c_root_id_B":"haim136","created_at_utc_A":1630076164,"created_at_utc_B":1630037858,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> I also deny that gender can be abolished: it would just return Why? Right now being a man is liking blue, being providing, being courageous, being arrogant, liking sports and video games etc, not wearing skirts, etc. Right now being a woman is liking pink, being nurturing, being empathetic, being catty, liking reality tv, wearing makeup, etc. Do you see how this stuff is somewhat arbitrary? Its true that if we \"abolish\" gender, there will probably be some other sexual dimorphism based construct that emerges. But that construct could be radically different from what man and woman look like today.","human_ref_B":"Gender is a social construct however the genders themselves are defined by biology Man = Male Woman = Female and basically it means you can't change your gender as it being a social construct is irrelevant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":38306.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"pbvgfm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Gender is not a social construct I have three presumptions: 1. \"social construct\" has a definition that is functional. 2. We follow the definion of gender as defined by it being a social construct. 3. The world is physical, I ignore \"soul\" \"god\" or other supernatural explanations. Ignoring the multitude of different definitions of social construct, I'm going with things which are either purely created by society, given a property (e.g. money), and those which have a very weak connection to the physical world (e.g. race, genius, art). For the sake of clarity, I don't define slavery as a social construct, as there are animals who partake in slavery (ants enslaving other ants). I'm gonna ignore arguments which confuse words being social constructs with what the word refers to: \"egg\" is not a social construct, the word is. A solid argument for why my definition is faulty will be accepted. Per def, gender is defined by what social norms a person follows and what characteristics they have, if they follow more masculine norms, they're a man, and feminine, they're a woman. This denies people - who might predominantly follow norms and have traits associated with the other sex - their own gender identity. It also denies trans people who might not \"socially\" transition in the sense that they still predominantly follow their sex's norms and still have their sex's traits. I also deny that gender can be abolished: it would just return as we (humans) *need* to classify things, and gender is one great way to classify humans. Gender is different from race in that gender is tightly bound to dimorphism of the sexes, whereas races do not have nearly anything to seperate each of them from each other, and there are large differences between cultures and periodes of how they're defined. Finally, if we do say that gender is a social construct, do we disregard people's feeling that they're born as the right\/wrong sex?","c_root_id_A":"haemnya","c_root_id_B":"hakaqbu","created_at_utc_A":1629972061,"created_at_utc_B":1630076164,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Gender is not the same as biology. Being born with a vagina does not automatically mean you want to wear beautiful dresses. Nor does being born with a penis automatically mean that you like hunting. Historically gender roles have been associated with ones sex organs and biology was mutually exclusive with gender. But things are changing.","human_ref_B":"> I also deny that gender can be abolished: it would just return Why? Right now being a man is liking blue, being providing, being courageous, being arrogant, liking sports and video games etc, not wearing skirts, etc. Right now being a woman is liking pink, being nurturing, being empathetic, being catty, liking reality tv, wearing makeup, etc. Do you see how this stuff is somewhat arbitrary? Its true that if we \"abolish\" gender, there will probably be some other sexual dimorphism based construct that emerges. But that construct could be radically different from what man and woman look like today.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":104103.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"pbvgfm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Gender is not a social construct I have three presumptions: 1. \"social construct\" has a definition that is functional. 2. We follow the definion of gender as defined by it being a social construct. 3. The world is physical, I ignore \"soul\" \"god\" or other supernatural explanations. Ignoring the multitude of different definitions of social construct, I'm going with things which are either purely created by society, given a property (e.g. money), and those which have a very weak connection to the physical world (e.g. race, genius, art). For the sake of clarity, I don't define slavery as a social construct, as there are animals who partake in slavery (ants enslaving other ants). I'm gonna ignore arguments which confuse words being social constructs with what the word refers to: \"egg\" is not a social construct, the word is. A solid argument for why my definition is faulty will be accepted. Per def, gender is defined by what social norms a person follows and what characteristics they have, if they follow more masculine norms, they're a man, and feminine, they're a woman. This denies people - who might predominantly follow norms and have traits associated with the other sex - their own gender identity. It also denies trans people who might not \"socially\" transition in the sense that they still predominantly follow their sex's norms and still have their sex's traits. I also deny that gender can be abolished: it would just return as we (humans) *need* to classify things, and gender is one great way to classify humans. Gender is different from race in that gender is tightly bound to dimorphism of the sexes, whereas races do not have nearly anything to seperate each of them from each other, and there are large differences between cultures and periodes of how they're defined. Finally, if we do say that gender is a social construct, do we disregard people's feeling that they're born as the right\/wrong sex?","c_root_id_A":"hakaqbu","c_root_id_B":"hagl5s7","created_at_utc_A":1630076164,"created_at_utc_B":1630004824,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> I also deny that gender can be abolished: it would just return Why? Right now being a man is liking blue, being providing, being courageous, being arrogant, liking sports and video games etc, not wearing skirts, etc. Right now being a woman is liking pink, being nurturing, being empathetic, being catty, liking reality tv, wearing makeup, etc. Do you see how this stuff is somewhat arbitrary? Its true that if we \"abolish\" gender, there will probably be some other sexual dimorphism based construct that emerges. But that construct could be radically different from what man and woman look like today.","human_ref_B":"The problem is that words are social constructs. You can define \"gender\" to mean anything you want. So if you believe gender means something then your conclusion is based on that. Your conclusion is logical based on your definitions. The issue is your definitions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":71340.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"pbvgfm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Gender is not a social construct I have three presumptions: 1. \"social construct\" has a definition that is functional. 2. We follow the definion of gender as defined by it being a social construct. 3. The world is physical, I ignore \"soul\" \"god\" or other supernatural explanations. Ignoring the multitude of different definitions of social construct, I'm going with things which are either purely created by society, given a property (e.g. money), and those which have a very weak connection to the physical world (e.g. race, genius, art). For the sake of clarity, I don't define slavery as a social construct, as there are animals who partake in slavery (ants enslaving other ants). I'm gonna ignore arguments which confuse words being social constructs with what the word refers to: \"egg\" is not a social construct, the word is. A solid argument for why my definition is faulty will be accepted. Per def, gender is defined by what social norms a person follows and what characteristics they have, if they follow more masculine norms, they're a man, and feminine, they're a woman. This denies people - who might predominantly follow norms and have traits associated with the other sex - their own gender identity. It also denies trans people who might not \"socially\" transition in the sense that they still predominantly follow their sex's norms and still have their sex's traits. I also deny that gender can be abolished: it would just return as we (humans) *need* to classify things, and gender is one great way to classify humans. Gender is different from race in that gender is tightly bound to dimorphism of the sexes, whereas races do not have nearly anything to seperate each of them from each other, and there are large differences between cultures and periodes of how they're defined. Finally, if we do say that gender is a social construct, do we disregard people's feeling that they're born as the right\/wrong sex?","c_root_id_A":"haim136","c_root_id_B":"haemnya","created_at_utc_A":1630037858,"created_at_utc_B":1629972061,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Gender is a social construct however the genders themselves are defined by biology Man = Male Woman = Female and basically it means you can't change your gender as it being a social construct is irrelevant.","human_ref_B":"Gender is not the same as biology. Being born with a vagina does not automatically mean you want to wear beautiful dresses. Nor does being born with a penis automatically mean that you like hunting. Historically gender roles have been associated with ones sex organs and biology was mutually exclusive with gender. But things are changing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":65797.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"pbvgfm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: Gender is not a social construct I have three presumptions: 1. \"social construct\" has a definition that is functional. 2. We follow the definion of gender as defined by it being a social construct. 3. The world is physical, I ignore \"soul\" \"god\" or other supernatural explanations. Ignoring the multitude of different definitions of social construct, I'm going with things which are either purely created by society, given a property (e.g. money), and those which have a very weak connection to the physical world (e.g. race, genius, art). For the sake of clarity, I don't define slavery as a social construct, as there are animals who partake in slavery (ants enslaving other ants). I'm gonna ignore arguments which confuse words being social constructs with what the word refers to: \"egg\" is not a social construct, the word is. A solid argument for why my definition is faulty will be accepted. Per def, gender is defined by what social norms a person follows and what characteristics they have, if they follow more masculine norms, they're a man, and feminine, they're a woman. This denies people - who might predominantly follow norms and have traits associated with the other sex - their own gender identity. It also denies trans people who might not \"socially\" transition in the sense that they still predominantly follow their sex's norms and still have their sex's traits. I also deny that gender can be abolished: it would just return as we (humans) *need* to classify things, and gender is one great way to classify humans. Gender is different from race in that gender is tightly bound to dimorphism of the sexes, whereas races do not have nearly anything to seperate each of them from each other, and there are large differences between cultures and periodes of how they're defined. Finally, if we do say that gender is a social construct, do we disregard people's feeling that they're born as the right\/wrong sex?","c_root_id_A":"hagl5s7","c_root_id_B":"haim136","created_at_utc_A":1630004824,"created_at_utc_B":1630037858,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The problem is that words are social constructs. You can define \"gender\" to mean anything you want. So if you believe gender means something then your conclusion is based on that. Your conclusion is logical based on your definitions. The issue is your definitions.","human_ref_B":"Gender is a social construct however the genders themselves are defined by biology Man = Male Woman = Female and basically it means you can't change your gender as it being a social construct is irrelevant.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33034.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"k5h0x6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: It is impossible to fully believe trans people *and* claim that gender is a social construct, without logically contradicting yourself When reading about the topic of gender and sex I discovered what I think is a contradiction in some people's worldview. I am therefore curious if this point holds up to criticism, or if I Just missed something. To avoid confusion, here are my own opinions on these matters: 1. Trans people are neither mentally ill nor lying about their gender identity. And both trans people who do and do not choose to transition are 100% valid. I do not see either of these points as debatable. 2. A large part of your gender identity is socially constructed, however another large part is determined biologically. The view I am thus arguing against here that 'gender' can be defined as \\*entirely\\* a social construct. And yes I am aware that a lot, if not most, people don't hold this view. However there is a significant number of people who do. ​ Now to my actual argument: A lot of trans people choose to make physical changes to their body, because they believe their body will then match their gender identity better. So why would they have this desire if gender identity is entirely determined by socially constructed gender norms? The way I see it, there are three posibilities here: 1. Trans people are \"confused\", and do not realise they do not need to change their bodies to identify as a different gender. 2. Trans people only make changes to their bodies because certain bodily aspects have become part of socially constructed gender norms. In a fully egalitarian and inclusive society they wouldn't feel the need to do so. ​ 3. Your gender identity here isn't entirely determined by social factors. ​ If you answered 1: Many trans people suffer a lot less from their gender dysphoria after surgery or hormone treatments, that wouldn't make any sense if they were just \"confused\". Besides, if anyone would know what trans people want or ought to want it's trans people themselves. If you answered 2: A fully egalitarian and inclusive society wouldn't have \\*any\\* gender norms. If being trans was only about performing a gender role, it would thus be impossible to even be trans in such a society. I also find the notion that being trans just means identifying more with the societal gender role your society has traditionally associated with the opposite sex is highly problematic. It de-legitimizes the transgender identity as mere 'preference' when in fact it is something you intrinsically \\*are\\*. Thus option 3 seems to be the only viable option: many aspects of our gender identity or socially constructed, i.e. 'girls like pink and boys like blue'. However it does seem there is a much more fundamental sense in which we \\*are\\* a boy or a girl (or neither) that is much more fundamental than any socially constucted gender role. Did make any mistakes in my reason? Or is there a 4th option I missed? Let me know!","c_root_id_A":"geeueee","c_root_id_B":"gees26u","created_at_utc_A":1606941381,"created_at_utc_B":1606940322,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I'm going to copy-paste two of my comments from a similar post this morning that was deleted. Sorry for the wall of text. >Gender expression is a cultural construct. Culture seeks to categorize, and we can use the way it categorizes as a tool to communicate aspects of ourselves. One way that culture categorizes is via gender. > >**Just because someone is a social\/cultural construct doesn't mean it isn't** ***real***. Gender categorization is a tool: you can use it to communicate aspects of yourself when you want, but you can also put it down if you want to not be burdened by its limitations. Language, money, and borders are all social\/cultural constructs, but they still have real impacts and real uses. level 2Captcha2711\u22061 point \u00b7 2 hours ago \u00b7 edited 3 minutes ago >I'm a person with XX chromosome and a vagina. Sometimes, I like to feel feminine and pretty. When I want to feel feminine and pretty, I wear skirts. What is inherently feminine about skirts? If there is some biological or physical or mathematical reason that skirts are fundamentally feminine, why did the ancient greeks think that pants were effeminate? Why is a thwab considered masculine garb in the arabian peninsula, given that it is dress-like? What about masculine Ao Dai? Why was this skirt considered the peak of masculine fashion for wealthy tudors? Why is a kilt masculine?\\*\\*\\* > >My conclusion is that a skirt is fundamentally neither masculine or feminine, but our current society classifies it as feminine. In a thousand years, that might be different. > >However, I still **choose** to wear a skirt when I want to feel feminine. Why? Because I've been raised to consider skirts to be feminine, and the people around me have been raised to categorize skirts as feminine. There is nothing inherently *wrong* with that. If I don't want to wear a skirt, I am not committing some crime against biology or physics. If I do want to wear a skirt, the people who see me will probably subconsciously categorize me as a feminine woman, which is what I want. If someone with a penis and XY chromosomes wants to wear a skirt, they are similarly not committing some crime against biology or physics. > >It's the same thing when I wear a suit and cut my hair short. There is no inherent biological or physical reason why a suit and tie and short hair are masculine traits, but if you saw me in a suit you'd probably categorize me as a masculine woman. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. While I am a woman, I **chose** to do something that society currently calls masculine. > >Cheerleading was first considered a masculine activity done exclusively by men, now it's considered a feminine activity. High heels were originally considered the peak of male fashion. Being a stay at home parent used to be exclusively feminine, now it's becoming more gender-neutral. Cooking at home for a long time was a feminine activity, while professional chefs are predominantly male. > >So if I, a person while a vagina and XX chromosomes, had a brain that made me want to exclusively wear masculine clothes, do masculine activities, be treated and recognized as a man, change my name to something masculine, and have words associated with me that are typically associated with men in our **current** society, what is fundamentally wrong with that? What harm is being done if someone with XY chromosomes and a penis wants to wear makeup and put bows in their hair, given that for the vast majority of western history men in power would wear makeup and style their hair extravagantly? > >The way that culture has categorized based on gender has shifted throughout humanity's entire history, and will likely continue to shift. Heck, pink was until very recently a masculine color, now it's a feminine color. There is no **biological** reason to be bound to any **current** cultural ideas of masculine or feminine, only **societal** reasons. **Hence, the way I express and experience my gender is cultural.** > >\\*\\*\\*Edit: Here's a hilarious video by a fashion historian about the history of male\/masculine fashion. Please watch it if you want more examples of the fluidity of gender categories.","human_ref_B":"Transness in regard to gender dysphoria is a medical condition in which you feel an extreme need to be in the body of the other sex and a severe disconnect to your body that causes a lot of emotional distress. Thats very biologically real. But the fact that we associate having a vagina with this concept of being a \"woman\" and associate it with specific gender roles of femininity so that trans women who want a vagina also want to consider themselves women and often wish to associate with femininity.. all of that comes from gender as a social construct and in a different society or time period where men wear heels and make up more than women trans women wouldnt inherently desire these things. Tl;dr being trans has to do with wanting a different body. The fact that we associate that with being a \"gender\" is just how we as a society decided to classify ourselves and that part of it is a social construct","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1059.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"k5h0x6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: It is impossible to fully believe trans people *and* claim that gender is a social construct, without logically contradicting yourself When reading about the topic of gender and sex I discovered what I think is a contradiction in some people's worldview. I am therefore curious if this point holds up to criticism, or if I Just missed something. To avoid confusion, here are my own opinions on these matters: 1. Trans people are neither mentally ill nor lying about their gender identity. And both trans people who do and do not choose to transition are 100% valid. I do not see either of these points as debatable. 2. A large part of your gender identity is socially constructed, however another large part is determined biologically. The view I am thus arguing against here that 'gender' can be defined as \\*entirely\\* a social construct. And yes I am aware that a lot, if not most, people don't hold this view. However there is a significant number of people who do. ​ Now to my actual argument: A lot of trans people choose to make physical changes to their body, because they believe their body will then match their gender identity better. So why would they have this desire if gender identity is entirely determined by socially constructed gender norms? The way I see it, there are three posibilities here: 1. Trans people are \"confused\", and do not realise they do not need to change their bodies to identify as a different gender. 2. Trans people only make changes to their bodies because certain bodily aspects have become part of socially constructed gender norms. In a fully egalitarian and inclusive society they wouldn't feel the need to do so. ​ 3. Your gender identity here isn't entirely determined by social factors. ​ If you answered 1: Many trans people suffer a lot less from their gender dysphoria after surgery or hormone treatments, that wouldn't make any sense if they were just \"confused\". Besides, if anyone would know what trans people want or ought to want it's trans people themselves. If you answered 2: A fully egalitarian and inclusive society wouldn't have \\*any\\* gender norms. If being trans was only about performing a gender role, it would thus be impossible to even be trans in such a society. I also find the notion that being trans just means identifying more with the societal gender role your society has traditionally associated with the opposite sex is highly problematic. It de-legitimizes the transgender identity as mere 'preference' when in fact it is something you intrinsically \\*are\\*. Thus option 3 seems to be the only viable option: many aspects of our gender identity or socially constructed, i.e. 'girls like pink and boys like blue'. However it does seem there is a much more fundamental sense in which we \\*are\\* a boy or a girl (or neither) that is much more fundamental than any socially constucted gender role. Did make any mistakes in my reason? Or is there a 4th option I missed? Let me know!","c_root_id_A":"geeqo94","c_root_id_B":"geeueee","created_at_utc_A":1606939747,"created_at_utc_B":1606941381,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"To me this is like saying that because racism is a social constrict you cant be harmed by it. Saying it's a social construct means theres not a biological basis to gender roles. It doesnt mean that gender cant significantly affect your life and self perception and that you can't choose to identify with a gender.","human_ref_B":"I'm going to copy-paste two of my comments from a similar post this morning that was deleted. Sorry for the wall of text. >Gender expression is a cultural construct. Culture seeks to categorize, and we can use the way it categorizes as a tool to communicate aspects of ourselves. One way that culture categorizes is via gender. > >**Just because someone is a social\/cultural construct doesn't mean it isn't** ***real***. Gender categorization is a tool: you can use it to communicate aspects of yourself when you want, but you can also put it down if you want to not be burdened by its limitations. Language, money, and borders are all social\/cultural constructs, but they still have real impacts and real uses. level 2Captcha2711\u22061 point \u00b7 2 hours ago \u00b7 edited 3 minutes ago >I'm a person with XX chromosome and a vagina. Sometimes, I like to feel feminine and pretty. When I want to feel feminine and pretty, I wear skirts. What is inherently feminine about skirts? If there is some biological or physical or mathematical reason that skirts are fundamentally feminine, why did the ancient greeks think that pants were effeminate? Why is a thwab considered masculine garb in the arabian peninsula, given that it is dress-like? What about masculine Ao Dai? Why was this skirt considered the peak of masculine fashion for wealthy tudors? Why is a kilt masculine?\\*\\*\\* > >My conclusion is that a skirt is fundamentally neither masculine or feminine, but our current society classifies it as feminine. In a thousand years, that might be different. > >However, I still **choose** to wear a skirt when I want to feel feminine. Why? Because I've been raised to consider skirts to be feminine, and the people around me have been raised to categorize skirts as feminine. There is nothing inherently *wrong* with that. If I don't want to wear a skirt, I am not committing some crime against biology or physics. If I do want to wear a skirt, the people who see me will probably subconsciously categorize me as a feminine woman, which is what I want. If someone with a penis and XY chromosomes wants to wear a skirt, they are similarly not committing some crime against biology or physics. > >It's the same thing when I wear a suit and cut my hair short. There is no inherent biological or physical reason why a suit and tie and short hair are masculine traits, but if you saw me in a suit you'd probably categorize me as a masculine woman. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. While I am a woman, I **chose** to do something that society currently calls masculine. > >Cheerleading was first considered a masculine activity done exclusively by men, now it's considered a feminine activity. High heels were originally considered the peak of male fashion. Being a stay at home parent used to be exclusively feminine, now it's becoming more gender-neutral. Cooking at home for a long time was a feminine activity, while professional chefs are predominantly male. > >So if I, a person while a vagina and XX chromosomes, had a brain that made me want to exclusively wear masculine clothes, do masculine activities, be treated and recognized as a man, change my name to something masculine, and have words associated with me that are typically associated with men in our **current** society, what is fundamentally wrong with that? What harm is being done if someone with XY chromosomes and a penis wants to wear makeup and put bows in their hair, given that for the vast majority of western history men in power would wear makeup and style their hair extravagantly? > >The way that culture has categorized based on gender has shifted throughout humanity's entire history, and will likely continue to shift. Heck, pink was until very recently a masculine color, now it's a feminine color. There is no **biological** reason to be bound to any **current** cultural ideas of masculine or feminine, only **societal** reasons. **Hence, the way I express and experience my gender is cultural.** > >\\*\\*\\*Edit: Here's a hilarious video by a fashion historian about the history of male\/masculine fashion. Please watch it if you want more examples of the fluidity of gender categories.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1634.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"k5h0x6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"CMV: It is impossible to fully believe trans people *and* claim that gender is a social construct, without logically contradicting yourself When reading about the topic of gender and sex I discovered what I think is a contradiction in some people's worldview. I am therefore curious if this point holds up to criticism, or if I Just missed something. To avoid confusion, here are my own opinions on these matters: 1. Trans people are neither mentally ill nor lying about their gender identity. And both trans people who do and do not choose to transition are 100% valid. I do not see either of these points as debatable. 2. A large part of your gender identity is socially constructed, however another large part is determined biologically. The view I am thus arguing against here that 'gender' can be defined as \\*entirely\\* a social construct. And yes I am aware that a lot, if not most, people don't hold this view. However there is a significant number of people who do. ​ Now to my actual argument: A lot of trans people choose to make physical changes to their body, because they believe their body will then match their gender identity better. So why would they have this desire if gender identity is entirely determined by socially constructed gender norms? The way I see it, there are three posibilities here: 1. Trans people are \"confused\", and do not realise they do not need to change their bodies to identify as a different gender. 2. Trans people only make changes to their bodies because certain bodily aspects have become part of socially constructed gender norms. In a fully egalitarian and inclusive society they wouldn't feel the need to do so. ​ 3. Your gender identity here isn't entirely determined by social factors. ​ If you answered 1: Many trans people suffer a lot less from their gender dysphoria after surgery or hormone treatments, that wouldn't make any sense if they were just \"confused\". Besides, if anyone would know what trans people want or ought to want it's trans people themselves. If you answered 2: A fully egalitarian and inclusive society wouldn't have \\*any\\* gender norms. If being trans was only about performing a gender role, it would thus be impossible to even be trans in such a society. I also find the notion that being trans just means identifying more with the societal gender role your society has traditionally associated with the opposite sex is highly problematic. It de-legitimizes the transgender identity as mere 'preference' when in fact it is something you intrinsically \\*are\\*. Thus option 3 seems to be the only viable option: many aspects of our gender identity or socially constructed, i.e. 'girls like pink and boys like blue'. However it does seem there is a much more fundamental sense in which we \\*are\\* a boy or a girl (or neither) that is much more fundamental than any socially constucted gender role. Did make any mistakes in my reason? Or is there a 4th option I missed? Let me know!","c_root_id_A":"geeqo94","c_root_id_B":"gees26u","created_at_utc_A":1606939747,"created_at_utc_B":1606940322,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"To me this is like saying that because racism is a social constrict you cant be harmed by it. Saying it's a social construct means theres not a biological basis to gender roles. It doesnt mean that gender cant significantly affect your life and self perception and that you can't choose to identify with a gender.","human_ref_B":"Transness in regard to gender dysphoria is a medical condition in which you feel an extreme need to be in the body of the other sex and a severe disconnect to your body that causes a lot of emotional distress. Thats very biologically real. But the fact that we associate having a vagina with this concept of being a \"woman\" and associate it with specific gender roles of femininity so that trans women who want a vagina also want to consider themselves women and often wish to associate with femininity.. all of that comes from gender as a social construct and in a different society or time period where men wear heels and make up more than women trans women wouldnt inherently desire these things. Tl;dr being trans has to do with wanting a different body. The fact that we associate that with being a \"gender\" is just how we as a society decided to classify ourselves and that part of it is a social construct","labels":0,"seconds_difference":575.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"1pjt46","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"I believe the US Presidency should be limited to one 6-year term. CMV Our political system is broken. Representatives spend so little time legislating and SO MUCH time campaigning for re-election. Senators are only slightly better. The President needs to be the one to make tough decisions in this country. Unpopular decisions. Decisions that might kill his approval ratings in the short term, but will end up helping the country in the long. If the President isn't constantly obsessing over his approval rating, he's more free to do what he feels is right. He's also less disposed to special interests. Do you think the advantages to the current system (4-year term, 1 re-election) outweigh the benefits of a change?","c_root_id_A":"cd3381l","c_root_id_B":"cd33a8a","created_at_utc_A":1383158668,"created_at_utc_B":1383158801,"score_A":7,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"> The President needs to be the one to make tough decisions in this country. No he doesn't. The president is the chief executive, not the chief decision maker. POTUS is not the sole decision maker, nor the tough decision maker. > Unpopular decisions. Decisions that might kill his approval ratings in the short term, but will end up helping the country in the long. Or might just as well be bad for the country in the long term. The popularity of a decision and its long term effects are not necessarily negatively correlated. > If the President isn't constantly obsessing over his approval rating, he's more free to do what he feels is right. Which is not the same as what's good for the country. Isn't the approval rating a crude measure of whether what he's doing is approved by the public - the very people his decision is supposed to serve? > He's also less disposed to special interests. Or more. Since there's no second term to lose on, maybe POTUS would rather devote more time cultivating relationships with lobby firms that will make his post-POTUS life a little more enjoyable? > Do you think the advantages to the current system (4-year term, 1 re-election) outweigh the benefits of a change? There's certainly little to think that a single term is a material improvement. > Our political system is broken. Or it's not. Maybe reddit tends to overblow everything a little bit?","human_ref_B":"One problem would be that a truly disastrous president would still get 6 years in office. We'd be stuck with a total dud for 6 years instead of the current 4.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":133.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286} {"post_id":"zclil7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Most of the factions in Fallout 4 are impossible to empathize with I genuinely would like my view changed because I feel like I'm missing out on a huge chunk of content due to my inability to immerse myself in the other factions. For me the fun in these types of games is immersing myself in the character and genuinely thinking how I would solve the problems and moral dilemmas you face in the game. Fallout 3 didn't really offer much in the way of choice, there was a linear story you joined up with the brotherhood of steel who represent a sort of compassionate warrior monk archetype. There's some comments about racism towards ghouls but generally they're portrayed as generic good guys. Then there's fallout new vegas where they introduce siding with factions, and while obviously Caeser's legion is the \"bad guys\" they at least have logical arguments. The old world democracies failed, they created the world these poor people have to live in, the Roman ancient world lasted 2000 years I can empathize with people living through that apocalyptical wasteland trading in freedom and democracy for stability and security even if I disagree with them. The NCR is typical liberal democracy with all the pros and cons of that system. Freedom and liberalism yes but also corruption and inefficiency. Then you have house again pros and cons, seems to be competent relative to everyone else (predicted the disaster, preserved vegas, clearly a genius who is developing technology that can fix many of the problems people face. But also clearly an authoritarian ego maniac, there are all sorts of questions about giving one \"person\" that much power (how much of a human being is House anymore, neither is he a cold logical machine, hes some sort of hybrid. All the coldness of a machine with the ego of a human a dangerous combination) not to mention the obvious huge inequalities House would create in his society of hyper capitalism. I assume the poor NCR migrants and people of Freeside won't be able to go to his lunar colony just like they can't get into Vegas. In the end you have 3 (.5 i don't consider yes man a real ending just sort of a player writes their own ending fan fic) choices each with massive problems and it ends up being a question of what do you value most: stability, liberty, or progress. Which brings us to fallout 4 where Bethesda tries to take take this faction system but honestly the only ones who feel like actual human beings are the railroad. The minutemen to me don't really count as they are similar to yes man to me. A \"make up your own ending\" ending. I think its fairly obvious that the modern synths are sentient as the games quests are very unambiguous and seem to shove it in your face. Whether its Dance's loyalty quest or Nick Valentine's the whole point of those quests is they are indistinguishable from human beings. So you have the railroad trying to protect sentient beings from being either enslaved or exterminated, and their cons are... they're kind of annoying hipsters and are disorganized? they don't help people other than synths very much? There's no real flaw to their ideology they're just generic good guys like the brotherhood of steel from fallout 3. Then you have the brotherhood of fallout 4 who make the argument \"synths can be dangerous therefore they should be destroyed\" which is absurd because people can be dangerous it doesn't mean we ought to wipe out humanity. I don't really know how to empathize with a fanatical cult with no discernable ideology other than technology we don't control bad. Finally there's the institute, I won't go into the replacing synths with people and screwing with the wasteland thing. governments do bad things, there are sometimes good reasons sometimes bad and unfortunately the game doesn't do a great job elaborating as to why they do the things they do. My major issue is they make no sense. Fine they refuse to accept the synths sentience, but clearly the modern versions are malfunctioning often enough that you require an entire dept. devoted to getting them back wasting tons of resources. What tasks could the latest gen synths possibly do that the older ones can't do? To me they don't even seem to justify their cost from a purely cost benefit analysis ignoring the obvious moral qualms of enslaving sentient beings. So Tl;dr Fallout 4 makes you pick between generic boring good guys, obvious nazis, or obvious slavers. Where is the moral nuance. how am I supposed to have fun playing like a brainwashed nazi. Maybe its just a me problem but like I said I'd love to have my view changed, maybe I'm missing nuance thanks","c_root_id_A":"iyx6lvh","c_root_id_B":"iyx6plh","created_at_utc_A":1670188555,"created_at_utc_B":1670188594,"score_A":2,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I see the minutemen as what the NCR was at the beginning. A ragtag group trying to get back to the way thing where before the bombs as much as they can. The fact that you call them yes men is a bit strange seeing how you become the general(or colonel, whichever it is), so it would be odd to have the people under your command just not listen. And on top of that you can drive them away if you go on several killing sprees. Also it\u2019s a fallout game so it\u2019s basically fair game to be whatever you want as you would in a real life apocalypse, granted you don\u2019t die.","human_ref_B":">Then there's fallout new vegas where they introduce siding with factions, and while obviously Caeser's legion is the \"bad guys\" they at least have logical arguments. The old world democracies failed, they created the world these poor people have to live in, the Roman ancient world lasted 2000 years The Legion and the Roman Empire have about as much in common as a hamster and a Ford Focus. The equivalent of my fat ass putting on some boots and a camo shirt and calling myself a navy seal. >The minutemen to me don't really count as they are similar to yes man to me. A \"make up your own ending\" ending. They serve the same purpose of being a faction you can't piss off until you have already passed the point of no return on the others. But they actually have a story and lore behind them. While the Yes Men are just an ass pull robot army. >Then you have the brotherhood of fallout 4 who make the argument \"synths can be dangerous therefore they should be destroyed\" which is absurd because people can be dangerous it doesn't mean we ought to wipe out humanity. Which is also why the BoS's MO is to keep advanced tech out of your average Joe's hands. And syths that can be made on an assembly line and are superior to normal humans in every way could wipe out and replace humanity. This is a major threat because if their infiltration capabilities. >My major issue is they make no sense. Fine they refuse to accept the synths sentience, but clearly the modern versions are malfunctioning often enough that you require an entire dept. devoted to getting them back wasting tons of resources. 1. Black people are living humans and yet they were once kept as slaves and seen as nothing more then barely human. So why can't that apply to synths? 2. They have given up on the surface and consider them a dead end for humanity. So only those in the Institute now matter.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":39.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"zclil7","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: Most of the factions in Fallout 4 are impossible to empathize with I genuinely would like my view changed because I feel like I'm missing out on a huge chunk of content due to my inability to immerse myself in the other factions. For me the fun in these types of games is immersing myself in the character and genuinely thinking how I would solve the problems and moral dilemmas you face in the game. Fallout 3 didn't really offer much in the way of choice, there was a linear story you joined up with the brotherhood of steel who represent a sort of compassionate warrior monk archetype. There's some comments about racism towards ghouls but generally they're portrayed as generic good guys. Then there's fallout new vegas where they introduce siding with factions, and while obviously Caeser's legion is the \"bad guys\" they at least have logical arguments. The old world democracies failed, they created the world these poor people have to live in, the Roman ancient world lasted 2000 years I can empathize with people living through that apocalyptical wasteland trading in freedom and democracy for stability and security even if I disagree with them. The NCR is typical liberal democracy with all the pros and cons of that system. Freedom and liberalism yes but also corruption and inefficiency. Then you have house again pros and cons, seems to be competent relative to everyone else (predicted the disaster, preserved vegas, clearly a genius who is developing technology that can fix many of the problems people face. But also clearly an authoritarian ego maniac, there are all sorts of questions about giving one \"person\" that much power (how much of a human being is House anymore, neither is he a cold logical machine, hes some sort of hybrid. All the coldness of a machine with the ego of a human a dangerous combination) not to mention the obvious huge inequalities House would create in his society of hyper capitalism. I assume the poor NCR migrants and people of Freeside won't be able to go to his lunar colony just like they can't get into Vegas. In the end you have 3 (.5 i don't consider yes man a real ending just sort of a player writes their own ending fan fic) choices each with massive problems and it ends up being a question of what do you value most: stability, liberty, or progress. Which brings us to fallout 4 where Bethesda tries to take take this faction system but honestly the only ones who feel like actual human beings are the railroad. The minutemen to me don't really count as they are similar to yes man to me. A \"make up your own ending\" ending. I think its fairly obvious that the modern synths are sentient as the games quests are very unambiguous and seem to shove it in your face. Whether its Dance's loyalty quest or Nick Valentine's the whole point of those quests is they are indistinguishable from human beings. So you have the railroad trying to protect sentient beings from being either enslaved or exterminated, and their cons are... they're kind of annoying hipsters and are disorganized? they don't help people other than synths very much? There's no real flaw to their ideology they're just generic good guys like the brotherhood of steel from fallout 3. Then you have the brotherhood of fallout 4 who make the argument \"synths can be dangerous therefore they should be destroyed\" which is absurd because people can be dangerous it doesn't mean we ought to wipe out humanity. I don't really know how to empathize with a fanatical cult with no discernable ideology other than technology we don't control bad. Finally there's the institute, I won't go into the replacing synths with people and screwing with the wasteland thing. governments do bad things, there are sometimes good reasons sometimes bad and unfortunately the game doesn't do a great job elaborating as to why they do the things they do. My major issue is they make no sense. Fine they refuse to accept the synths sentience, but clearly the modern versions are malfunctioning often enough that you require an entire dept. devoted to getting them back wasting tons of resources. What tasks could the latest gen synths possibly do that the older ones can't do? To me they don't even seem to justify their cost from a purely cost benefit analysis ignoring the obvious moral qualms of enslaving sentient beings. So Tl;dr Fallout 4 makes you pick between generic boring good guys, obvious nazis, or obvious slavers. Where is the moral nuance. how am I supposed to have fun playing like a brainwashed nazi. Maybe its just a me problem but like I said I'd love to have my view changed, maybe I'm missing nuance thanks","c_root_id_A":"iyxb030","c_root_id_B":"iyx6lvh","created_at_utc_A":1670190306,"created_at_utc_B":1670188555,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It irks me the first two games aren't mentioned as they are the best of the series. Hipsters rage aside, Every Major Faction in every fallout game is shitty. It's a 100% morally grey universe and everyone sucks a bit, that's a huge part of the moral nuance of the world. It reminds me a lot of GOT\/ASOIAF, every one sucks even \"good guys\" like the Starks may be ethical but are far too fucking stupid to live or really even function within the society they are a part of. Also, zigzag Rickon for fucks sake... The railroad aren't generic good guys, they are moron terrorists. Part of the experience of playing fallout is making tough ethical decisions in a world where nearly all actions have deeply negative consequences. The personal control option be it yesman, minutemen, or fucking raiders is the only ethical option, as all other pre-written factions are fucking terrible.","human_ref_B":"I see the minutemen as what the NCR was at the beginning. A ragtag group trying to get back to the way thing where before the bombs as much as they can. The fact that you call them yes men is a bit strange seeing how you become the general(or colonel, whichever it is), so it would be odd to have the people under your command just not listen. And on top of that you can drive them away if you go on several killing sprees. Also it\u2019s a fallout game so it\u2019s basically fair game to be whatever you want as you would in a real life apocalypse, granted you don\u2019t die.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1751.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6eibcm","c_root_id_B":"e6efacl","created_at_utc_A":1537564535,"created_at_utc_B":1537561841,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There's other consequences to this than just you getting downvotes. Using the tag minimizes that the thread will be taken over by a billion people misunderstanding you.","human_ref_B":"As you've alluded to, I think that it's very easy to misunderstand the tonality and\/or emotion behind words when they're written and read as opposed to spoken and heard. Everyone knows what sarcastic tone sounds like which is the cue that you're being sarcastic. The sarcmark clearly issues that cue. Italicizing a word may still be misread. Also, if there's a sarcmark, you can't be later accused of changing your mind and calling what was first intended to be a serious comment as sarcasm. -- \"Fuck you, dude!\" \"Hey, don't swear at me or I'm leaving.\" \"It's just a prank, bro, GOSH!! Can't you take a joke?\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2694.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6eibcm","c_root_id_B":"e6ehl2r","created_at_utc_A":1537564535,"created_at_utc_B":1537563859,"score_A":11,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"There's other consequences to this than just you getting downvotes. Using the tag minimizes that the thread will be taken over by a billion people misunderstanding you.","human_ref_B":"I like dry wit, lots of people like dry wit. Your examples, that apparently improve the delivery, all reduce the dryness of the comment, to make the satire obvious. In my opinion, the closer the content and delivery of the satire to the thing it is satirising, the better the satire is. i.e. if what you say is ridiculously stupid, but taken out of context people can't tell if you're being serious or not, then you're doing satire right and well. Your examples: italicised (the internet version of saying something in a silly voice), exaggerated language (hail), deliberate mistakes to make your point (~~hydra~~)- all take away from the dryness and sophistication of the comment. Obviously exaggerated satire is lazy and alienates people more. The sarcmarks take away from the dryness of the comment too, but some level of communication of the satire is necessary on the internet as it is full of people you don't know, that are all potential lunatics, that actually believe what they've written. Sarcmarks accommodate for this without impacting the comment itself, they're at the end and don't change the content of the actual message. Sarcmarks are the equivalent of delivering a joke completely deadpan, and then giving a small smirk to your confused looking audience to let them know if they should laugh or weep at the stupidity of what you've just said.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":676.0,"score_ratio":1.375} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6eg934","c_root_id_B":"e6eibcm","created_at_utc_A":1537562683,"created_at_utc_B":1537564535,"score_A":6,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I think you underestimate how stupid (or to put it charitably; unobservant) some people can be. No matter how well crafted your satirical comment can be, somebody might take it seriously if you don't explicitly state the tone with something like the sarcmark","human_ref_B":"There's other consequences to this than just you getting downvotes. Using the tag minimizes that the thread will be taken over by a billion people misunderstanding you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1852.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6efpn3","c_root_id_B":"e6eibcm","created_at_utc_A":1537562208,"created_at_utc_B":1537564535,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes the \/s is part of the stylistic presentation of the joke.","human_ref_B":"There's other consequences to this than just you getting downvotes. Using the tag minimizes that the thread will be taken over by a billion people misunderstanding you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2327.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6eibcm","c_root_id_B":"e6efw4f","created_at_utc_A":1537564535,"created_at_utc_B":1537562367,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There's other consequences to this than just you getting downvotes. Using the tag minimizes that the thread will be taken over by a billion people misunderstanding you.","human_ref_B":"\u201c[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\u201d and \u201c[Politician] is doing a *great* job!\u201d convey the exact same message. The latter is in no regards more \u201cinteresting\u201d, \u201ctactful\u201d, or \u201chigh-effort\u201d than the former.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2168.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6eibcm","c_root_id_B":"e6eg8bp","created_at_utc_A":1537564535,"created_at_utc_B":1537562665,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There's other consequences to this than just you getting downvotes. Using the tag minimizes that the thread will be taken over by a billion people misunderstanding you.","human_ref_B":"> \"\\[Politician\\] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone Italics imply emphasis, not tone. When speaking sarcastically, emphasis *and* tone both help communicate the speaker's intent. > \"Hail \\[Politician\\]!\" - exaggeration Exaggeration works best when people have a baseline knowledge of your beliefs. Exaggeration plus incongruity with what you believe implies sarcasm, exaggeration that's consistent with your beliefs does not. On the internet, unless you're a well-known personality or you're posting in a place filled with like-minded individuals, most people don't know if you're being consistent with yourself or not. > \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ \\[Politician\\]!\" - pop culture reference People who don't get the reference won't get what you mean. Furthermore, the strikethrough technique doesn't map nicely to human speech patterns. The sarcmark is an attempt to map an established human speech pattern to text. Since spoken sarcasm usually relies on a listener picking up vocal cues, re-creating that speech pattern in text requires some kind of vocal cue replacement. The sarcmark may not be elegant for that purpose, but it is effective. Sarcasm itself is arguably lazy. Having a way to do it online doesn't make it any more or less so. That said, it is a way that people speak, and as long as that's true, it's going to turn up in one way or another.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1870.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6egpi6","c_root_id_B":"e6eibcm","created_at_utc_A":1537563088,"created_at_utc_B":1537564535,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Sarcasm doesn\u2019t relate to text, especially one liners. Everyone has misread or miss understood a text","human_ref_B":"There's other consequences to this than just you getting downvotes. Using the tag minimizes that the thread will be taken over by a billion people misunderstanding you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1447.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6efacl","c_root_id_B":"e6ehl2r","created_at_utc_A":1537561841,"created_at_utc_B":1537563859,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"As you've alluded to, I think that it's very easy to misunderstand the tonality and\/or emotion behind words when they're written and read as opposed to spoken and heard. Everyone knows what sarcastic tone sounds like which is the cue that you're being sarcastic. The sarcmark clearly issues that cue. Italicizing a word may still be misread. Also, if there's a sarcmark, you can't be later accused of changing your mind and calling what was first intended to be a serious comment as sarcasm. -- \"Fuck you, dude!\" \"Hey, don't swear at me or I'm leaving.\" \"It's just a prank, bro, GOSH!! Can't you take a joke?\"","human_ref_B":"I like dry wit, lots of people like dry wit. Your examples, that apparently improve the delivery, all reduce the dryness of the comment, to make the satire obvious. In my opinion, the closer the content and delivery of the satire to the thing it is satirising, the better the satire is. i.e. if what you say is ridiculously stupid, but taken out of context people can't tell if you're being serious or not, then you're doing satire right and well. Your examples: italicised (the internet version of saying something in a silly voice), exaggerated language (hail), deliberate mistakes to make your point (~~hydra~~)- all take away from the dryness and sophistication of the comment. Obviously exaggerated satire is lazy and alienates people more. The sarcmarks take away from the dryness of the comment too, but some level of communication of the satire is necessary on the internet as it is full of people you don't know, that are all potential lunatics, that actually believe what they've written. Sarcmarks accommodate for this without impacting the comment itself, they're at the end and don't change the content of the actual message. Sarcmarks are the equivalent of delivering a joke completely deadpan, and then giving a small smirk to your confused looking audience to let them know if they should laugh or weep at the stupidity of what you've just said.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2018.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6eg934","c_root_id_B":"e6ehl2r","created_at_utc_A":1537562683,"created_at_utc_B":1537563859,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think you underestimate how stupid (or to put it charitably; unobservant) some people can be. No matter how well crafted your satirical comment can be, somebody might take it seriously if you don't explicitly state the tone with something like the sarcmark","human_ref_B":"I like dry wit, lots of people like dry wit. Your examples, that apparently improve the delivery, all reduce the dryness of the comment, to make the satire obvious. In my opinion, the closer the content and delivery of the satire to the thing it is satirising, the better the satire is. i.e. if what you say is ridiculously stupid, but taken out of context people can't tell if you're being serious or not, then you're doing satire right and well. Your examples: italicised (the internet version of saying something in a silly voice), exaggerated language (hail), deliberate mistakes to make your point (~~hydra~~)- all take away from the dryness and sophistication of the comment. Obviously exaggerated satire is lazy and alienates people more. The sarcmarks take away from the dryness of the comment too, but some level of communication of the satire is necessary on the internet as it is full of people you don't know, that are all potential lunatics, that actually believe what they've written. Sarcmarks accommodate for this without impacting the comment itself, they're at the end and don't change the content of the actual message. Sarcmarks are the equivalent of delivering a joke completely deadpan, and then giving a small smirk to your confused looking audience to let them know if they should laugh or weep at the stupidity of what you've just said.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1176.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6efpn3","c_root_id_B":"e6ehl2r","created_at_utc_A":1537562208,"created_at_utc_B":1537563859,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Sometimes the \/s is part of the stylistic presentation of the joke.","human_ref_B":"I like dry wit, lots of people like dry wit. Your examples, that apparently improve the delivery, all reduce the dryness of the comment, to make the satire obvious. In my opinion, the closer the content and delivery of the satire to the thing it is satirising, the better the satire is. i.e. if what you say is ridiculously stupid, but taken out of context people can't tell if you're being serious or not, then you're doing satire right and well. Your examples: italicised (the internet version of saying something in a silly voice), exaggerated language (hail), deliberate mistakes to make your point (~~hydra~~)- all take away from the dryness and sophistication of the comment. Obviously exaggerated satire is lazy and alienates people more. The sarcmarks take away from the dryness of the comment too, but some level of communication of the satire is necessary on the internet as it is full of people you don't know, that are all potential lunatics, that actually believe what they've written. Sarcmarks accommodate for this without impacting the comment itself, they're at the end and don't change the content of the actual message. Sarcmarks are the equivalent of delivering a joke completely deadpan, and then giving a small smirk to your confused looking audience to let them know if they should laugh or weep at the stupidity of what you've just said.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1651.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6efw4f","c_root_id_B":"e6ehl2r","created_at_utc_A":1537562367,"created_at_utc_B":1537563859,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"\u201c[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\u201d and \u201c[Politician] is doing a *great* job!\u201d convey the exact same message. The latter is in no regards more \u201cinteresting\u201d, \u201ctactful\u201d, or \u201chigh-effort\u201d than the former.","human_ref_B":"I like dry wit, lots of people like dry wit. Your examples, that apparently improve the delivery, all reduce the dryness of the comment, to make the satire obvious. In my opinion, the closer the content and delivery of the satire to the thing it is satirising, the better the satire is. i.e. if what you say is ridiculously stupid, but taken out of context people can't tell if you're being serious or not, then you're doing satire right and well. Your examples: italicised (the internet version of saying something in a silly voice), exaggerated language (hail), deliberate mistakes to make your point (~~hydra~~)- all take away from the dryness and sophistication of the comment. Obviously exaggerated satire is lazy and alienates people more. The sarcmarks take away from the dryness of the comment too, but some level of communication of the satire is necessary on the internet as it is full of people you don't know, that are all potential lunatics, that actually believe what they've written. Sarcmarks accommodate for this without impacting the comment itself, they're at the end and don't change the content of the actual message. Sarcmarks are the equivalent of delivering a joke completely deadpan, and then giving a small smirk to your confused looking audience to let them know if they should laugh or weep at the stupidity of what you've just said.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1492.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6eg8bp","c_root_id_B":"e6ehl2r","created_at_utc_A":1537562665,"created_at_utc_B":1537563859,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"> \"\\[Politician\\] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone Italics imply emphasis, not tone. When speaking sarcastically, emphasis *and* tone both help communicate the speaker's intent. > \"Hail \\[Politician\\]!\" - exaggeration Exaggeration works best when people have a baseline knowledge of your beliefs. Exaggeration plus incongruity with what you believe implies sarcasm, exaggeration that's consistent with your beliefs does not. On the internet, unless you're a well-known personality or you're posting in a place filled with like-minded individuals, most people don't know if you're being consistent with yourself or not. > \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ \\[Politician\\]!\" - pop culture reference People who don't get the reference won't get what you mean. Furthermore, the strikethrough technique doesn't map nicely to human speech patterns. The sarcmark is an attempt to map an established human speech pattern to text. Since spoken sarcasm usually relies on a listener picking up vocal cues, re-creating that speech pattern in text requires some kind of vocal cue replacement. The sarcmark may not be elegant for that purpose, but it is effective. Sarcasm itself is arguably lazy. Having a way to do it online doesn't make it any more or less so. That said, it is a way that people speak, and as long as that's true, it's going to turn up in one way or another.","human_ref_B":"I like dry wit, lots of people like dry wit. Your examples, that apparently improve the delivery, all reduce the dryness of the comment, to make the satire obvious. In my opinion, the closer the content and delivery of the satire to the thing it is satirising, the better the satire is. i.e. if what you say is ridiculously stupid, but taken out of context people can't tell if you're being serious or not, then you're doing satire right and well. Your examples: italicised (the internet version of saying something in a silly voice), exaggerated language (hail), deliberate mistakes to make your point (~~hydra~~)- all take away from the dryness and sophistication of the comment. Obviously exaggerated satire is lazy and alienates people more. The sarcmarks take away from the dryness of the comment too, but some level of communication of the satire is necessary on the internet as it is full of people you don't know, that are all potential lunatics, that actually believe what they've written. Sarcmarks accommodate for this without impacting the comment itself, they're at the end and don't change the content of the actual message. Sarcmarks are the equivalent of delivering a joke completely deadpan, and then giving a small smirk to your confused looking audience to let them know if they should laugh or weep at the stupidity of what you've just said.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1194.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6ehl2r","c_root_id_B":"e6egpi6","created_at_utc_A":1537563859,"created_at_utc_B":1537563088,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I like dry wit, lots of people like dry wit. Your examples, that apparently improve the delivery, all reduce the dryness of the comment, to make the satire obvious. In my opinion, the closer the content and delivery of the satire to the thing it is satirising, the better the satire is. i.e. if what you say is ridiculously stupid, but taken out of context people can't tell if you're being serious or not, then you're doing satire right and well. Your examples: italicised (the internet version of saying something in a silly voice), exaggerated language (hail), deliberate mistakes to make your point (~~hydra~~)- all take away from the dryness and sophistication of the comment. Obviously exaggerated satire is lazy and alienates people more. The sarcmarks take away from the dryness of the comment too, but some level of communication of the satire is necessary on the internet as it is full of people you don't know, that are all potential lunatics, that actually believe what they've written. Sarcmarks accommodate for this without impacting the comment itself, they're at the end and don't change the content of the actual message. Sarcmarks are the equivalent of delivering a joke completely deadpan, and then giving a small smirk to your confused looking audience to let them know if they should laugh or weep at the stupidity of what you've just said.","human_ref_B":"Sarcasm doesn\u2019t relate to text, especially one liners. Everyone has misread or miss understood a text","labels":1,"seconds_difference":771.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6eg934","c_root_id_B":"e6efpn3","created_at_utc_A":1537562683,"created_at_utc_B":1537562208,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think you underestimate how stupid (or to put it charitably; unobservant) some people can be. No matter how well crafted your satirical comment can be, somebody might take it seriously if you don't explicitly state the tone with something like the sarcmark","human_ref_B":"Sometimes the \/s is part of the stylistic presentation of the joke.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":475.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6eg934","c_root_id_B":"e6efw4f","created_at_utc_A":1537562683,"created_at_utc_B":1537562367,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I think you underestimate how stupid (or to put it charitably; unobservant) some people can be. No matter how well crafted your satirical comment can be, somebody might take it seriously if you don't explicitly state the tone with something like the sarcmark","human_ref_B":"\u201c[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\u201d and \u201c[Politician] is doing a *great* job!\u201d convey the exact same message. The latter is in no regards more \u201cinteresting\u201d, \u201ctactful\u201d, or \u201chigh-effort\u201d than the former.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":316.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"9hto81","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.57,"history":"CMV: The \"sarcmark\" (\"\/s\") encourages lazy, low-effort comments. If you can't get your tone across stylistically, you probably deserve the downvotes. The sarcmark (\"\/s\") used denote sarcasm and\/or irony provides no real value except to shield lazy joke comments that don't contribute to on-line discussion. Good satire takes some craft and, if people can't recognize your intent from the phrasing or style of your text, than you ought to take your downvotes on the chin and improve your writing. Additionally, it has caused some people to expect and *rely* on the sarcmark, responding to overt and well-crafted satire with, \"Is this missing a '\/s'?\" and the like. Comments like these discourage nuance and creativity. If 1,000 people get the joke, it's fine if 100 don't. We don't have to water everything down for them. Take this common example: In a post about Politician] doing a thing people are upset about, you'll often see a comment like, \"[Politician] is doing a great job! \/s\" with thousands of upvotes. Without the sarcmark, this comment adds nothing. There are a variety of ways to get the same point across in more interesting ways: \"[Politician] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone \"Hail [Politician]!\" - exaggeration \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ [Politician]!\" - pop culture reference None of those are award-winning satire, but they all make the writer's intent clear with a little wink, as opposed to the tactless sarcmark. TL;DR: **If people can't tell you're being funny, you're probably not being funny. CMV.** _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e6eg8bp","c_root_id_B":"e6eg934","created_at_utc_A":1537562665,"created_at_utc_B":1537562683,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> \"\\[Politician\\] is doing a *great* job\" - italics imply tone Italics imply emphasis, not tone. When speaking sarcastically, emphasis *and* tone both help communicate the speaker's intent. > \"Hail \\[Politician\\]!\" - exaggeration Exaggeration works best when people have a baseline knowledge of your beliefs. Exaggeration plus incongruity with what you believe implies sarcasm, exaggeration that's consistent with your beliefs does not. On the internet, unless you're a well-known personality or you're posting in a place filled with like-minded individuals, most people don't know if you're being consistent with yourself or not. > \"Hail ~~Hydra~~ \\[Politician\\]!\" - pop culture reference People who don't get the reference won't get what you mean. Furthermore, the strikethrough technique doesn't map nicely to human speech patterns. The sarcmark is an attempt to map an established human speech pattern to text. Since spoken sarcasm usually relies on a listener picking up vocal cues, re-creating that speech pattern in text requires some kind of vocal cue replacement. The sarcmark may not be elegant for that purpose, but it is effective. Sarcasm itself is arguably lazy. Having a way to do it online doesn't make it any more or less so. That said, it is a way that people speak, and as long as that's true, it's going to turn up in one way or another.","human_ref_B":"I think you underestimate how stupid (or to put it charitably; unobservant) some people can be. No matter how well crafted your satirical comment can be, somebody might take it seriously if you don't explicitly state the tone with something like the sarcmark","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"1vvvm0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Humanity is the only thing in this planet worth saving. Environmentalism, conservationism, etc, only matters as a means to guarantee the survival and prosperity of the human race. CMV I support environmentalism and I am deeply concerned about the future of our planet. However, I only do so because it's humanity itself that is in danger. I don't believe we should protect our environment for it's own sake and it DEEPLY confuses me whenever I see (which is alarmingly often) comments on enviro-doom stories that show either resignation (i.e. \"Mankind will be a footnote on this planet\") or misanthropy (i.e. \"Maybe the next species will do a better job\") HUmans are without a doubt the SINGLE most important thing on the planet. We are the only known species capable of sentience, compassion and the concept of ethics. Despite me despising these misanthropes, the fact that they EXIST and are so digusted by our actions to the point to wish for our demise is PROOF of our superiority: no other species is this self aware. Until alien species on or superior to our level are found, we are definitely the supreme beings of this world. For lack of a better term, WE ARE GODS. Flawed gods, but gods nonetheless (akin to the often cruel, stupid and petty gods of Greek Mythology). If we were to die, we would leave behind a much poorer world. Yes, you might claim that the natural world is beautiful but what is beauty without a means to COMPREHEND it? If we were given the option to burn the world, burn the moon, burn the solar system, in exchange for prosperity for all, then I'd say take it! Who ewould suffer in return? Animals who are barely aware of themselves, who, unlike some misanthropes claim, murder and rape for fun? I realize this is an unpopularopinion and that's why I am here. Until you can convince me otherwise, Mankind reigns supreme. (And no, my name is not Jack Harper, nor do I have the most awesome office in the galaxy :-P)","c_root_id_A":"cew9nmj","c_root_id_B":"cewc2co","created_at_utc_A":1390427157,"created_at_utc_B":1390431709,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Unless there's some kind of grand purpose or universal master plan that requires life with high intelligence to accomplish, why does our \"superiority\" even matter in this context? Why does it make us important?","human_ref_B":"If we self-annihilate ourselves after only 3 million years on this planet, wouldn't that make us a vastly inferior species from an evolutionary perspective?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4552.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"1vvvm0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Humanity is the only thing in this planet worth saving. Environmentalism, conservationism, etc, only matters as a means to guarantee the survival and prosperity of the human race. CMV I support environmentalism and I am deeply concerned about the future of our planet. However, I only do so because it's humanity itself that is in danger. I don't believe we should protect our environment for it's own sake and it DEEPLY confuses me whenever I see (which is alarmingly often) comments on enviro-doom stories that show either resignation (i.e. \"Mankind will be a footnote on this planet\") or misanthropy (i.e. \"Maybe the next species will do a better job\") HUmans are without a doubt the SINGLE most important thing on the planet. We are the only known species capable of sentience, compassion and the concept of ethics. Despite me despising these misanthropes, the fact that they EXIST and are so digusted by our actions to the point to wish for our demise is PROOF of our superiority: no other species is this self aware. Until alien species on or superior to our level are found, we are definitely the supreme beings of this world. For lack of a better term, WE ARE GODS. Flawed gods, but gods nonetheless (akin to the often cruel, stupid and petty gods of Greek Mythology). If we were to die, we would leave behind a much poorer world. Yes, you might claim that the natural world is beautiful but what is beauty without a means to COMPREHEND it? If we were given the option to burn the world, burn the moon, burn the solar system, in exchange for prosperity for all, then I'd say take it! Who ewould suffer in return? Animals who are barely aware of themselves, who, unlike some misanthropes claim, murder and rape for fun? I realize this is an unpopularopinion and that's why I am here. Until you can convince me otherwise, Mankind reigns supreme. (And no, my name is not Jack Harper, nor do I have the most awesome office in the galaxy :-P)","c_root_id_A":"cewhso5","c_root_id_B":"cewhn6u","created_at_utc_A":1390444086,"created_at_utc_B":1390443766,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Humans are without a doubt the SINGLE most important thing on the planet. I challenge this assertion simply because we, as humans, invented the concept of importance and are incapable of an objective analysis of our relative importance to other aspects of the natural world since \"importance\" is a uniquely human qualifier. I would also argue that self-awareness is in no sense a measure of superiority. Self-awareness allows humans to act like humans, which makes it importance to *us,* and so again this is a case of applying human qualifiers to a non-human world. If we're looking at this biologically, humans are *far* from the most successful species on Earth. That honor goes to bacteria, or beetles if we're only judging macroscopic life. However, your main argument is that it is our capacity to apply our concepts of beauty and comprehension to the natural world that imparts greater value onto us than onto other terrestrial species. You even characterize *all* other animals as being \"barely aware of themselves.\" This is blatantly wrong. Humans experience the world more or less the same way that all other mammals do, *emotions and all.* We're capable of more abstraction than *most* other mammals and this has given us a huge edge in terms of survival, but this is *not* a just world and it *doesn't* mean we are objectively superior to other animals. Humans rape and murder for fun, too, or did you forget that?","human_ref_B":"Granted: human desires and life are the most important things known to man. Nature is worth protecting because we as humans find that it enriches human life, considerably and deeply. Many find their level of connection to and appreciation of nature to be intense enough to describe it as spiritual. This is a value not to be casually disregarded. Human prosperity without access to nature would be considerably less valuable. There is therefore an optimal level of protected nature (meaning foregone consumption of resources) far above zero. It seems like your argument is actually that, if it came down to desolating nature or exterminating the human race, you'd pick desolating nature... which is not exactly controversial, albeit an unpleasant thought. If it's them or us, well, it's us. What you superficially appear to be arguing against is tempering economic consumption in favor of preserving nature (environmentalism in general) which is very controversial, but I don't see that that is actually what you've said.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":320.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1vvvm0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Humanity is the only thing in this planet worth saving. Environmentalism, conservationism, etc, only matters as a means to guarantee the survival and prosperity of the human race. CMV I support environmentalism and I am deeply concerned about the future of our planet. However, I only do so because it's humanity itself that is in danger. I don't believe we should protect our environment for it's own sake and it DEEPLY confuses me whenever I see (which is alarmingly often) comments on enviro-doom stories that show either resignation (i.e. \"Mankind will be a footnote on this planet\") or misanthropy (i.e. \"Maybe the next species will do a better job\") HUmans are without a doubt the SINGLE most important thing on the planet. We are the only known species capable of sentience, compassion and the concept of ethics. Despite me despising these misanthropes, the fact that they EXIST and are so digusted by our actions to the point to wish for our demise is PROOF of our superiority: no other species is this self aware. Until alien species on or superior to our level are found, we are definitely the supreme beings of this world. For lack of a better term, WE ARE GODS. Flawed gods, but gods nonetheless (akin to the often cruel, stupid and petty gods of Greek Mythology). If we were to die, we would leave behind a much poorer world. Yes, you might claim that the natural world is beautiful but what is beauty without a means to COMPREHEND it? If we were given the option to burn the world, burn the moon, burn the solar system, in exchange for prosperity for all, then I'd say take it! Who ewould suffer in return? Animals who are barely aware of themselves, who, unlike some misanthropes claim, murder and rape for fun? I realize this is an unpopularopinion and that's why I am here. Until you can convince me otherwise, Mankind reigns supreme. (And no, my name is not Jack Harper, nor do I have the most awesome office in the galaxy :-P)","c_root_id_A":"cewtxu8","c_root_id_B":"cewhn6u","created_at_utc_A":1390487893,"created_at_utc_B":1390443766,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't think it's fair to assume human superiority over all other lifeforms. Humans are complex systems just like every other organism on the planet.","human_ref_B":"Granted: human desires and life are the most important things known to man. Nature is worth protecting because we as humans find that it enriches human life, considerably and deeply. Many find their level of connection to and appreciation of nature to be intense enough to describe it as spiritual. This is a value not to be casually disregarded. Human prosperity without access to nature would be considerably less valuable. There is therefore an optimal level of protected nature (meaning foregone consumption of resources) far above zero. It seems like your argument is actually that, if it came down to desolating nature or exterminating the human race, you'd pick desolating nature... which is not exactly controversial, albeit an unpleasant thought. If it's them or us, well, it's us. What you superficially appear to be arguing against is tempering economic consumption in favor of preserving nature (environmentalism in general) which is very controversial, but I don't see that that is actually what you've said.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":44127.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1vvvm0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Humanity is the only thing in this planet worth saving. Environmentalism, conservationism, etc, only matters as a means to guarantee the survival and prosperity of the human race. CMV I support environmentalism and I am deeply concerned about the future of our planet. However, I only do so because it's humanity itself that is in danger. I don't believe we should protect our environment for it's own sake and it DEEPLY confuses me whenever I see (which is alarmingly often) comments on enviro-doom stories that show either resignation (i.e. \"Mankind will be a footnote on this planet\") or misanthropy (i.e. \"Maybe the next species will do a better job\") HUmans are without a doubt the SINGLE most important thing on the planet. We are the only known species capable of sentience, compassion and the concept of ethics. Despite me despising these misanthropes, the fact that they EXIST and are so digusted by our actions to the point to wish for our demise is PROOF of our superiority: no other species is this self aware. Until alien species on or superior to our level are found, we are definitely the supreme beings of this world. For lack of a better term, WE ARE GODS. Flawed gods, but gods nonetheless (akin to the often cruel, stupid and petty gods of Greek Mythology). If we were to die, we would leave behind a much poorer world. Yes, you might claim that the natural world is beautiful but what is beauty without a means to COMPREHEND it? If we were given the option to burn the world, burn the moon, burn the solar system, in exchange for prosperity for all, then I'd say take it! Who ewould suffer in return? Animals who are barely aware of themselves, who, unlike some misanthropes claim, murder and rape for fun? I realize this is an unpopularopinion and that's why I am here. Until you can convince me otherwise, Mankind reigns supreme. (And no, my name is not Jack Harper, nor do I have the most awesome office in the galaxy :-P)","c_root_id_A":"cewtxu8","c_root_id_B":"cewipko","created_at_utc_A":1390487893,"created_at_utc_B":1390445972,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't think it's fair to assume human superiority over all other lifeforms. Humans are complex systems just like every other organism on the planet.","human_ref_B":"I would go one step further. The only thing worth saving or fighting for are me, my friends and my family - and in that order! Common reasoning should be obvious and no one should be scared of such thoughts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":41921.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1vvvm0","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Humanity is the only thing in this planet worth saving. Environmentalism, conservationism, etc, only matters as a means to guarantee the survival and prosperity of the human race. CMV I support environmentalism and I am deeply concerned about the future of our planet. However, I only do so because it's humanity itself that is in danger. I don't believe we should protect our environment for it's own sake and it DEEPLY confuses me whenever I see (which is alarmingly often) comments on enviro-doom stories that show either resignation (i.e. \"Mankind will be a footnote on this planet\") or misanthropy (i.e. \"Maybe the next species will do a better job\") HUmans are without a doubt the SINGLE most important thing on the planet. We are the only known species capable of sentience, compassion and the concept of ethics. Despite me despising these misanthropes, the fact that they EXIST and are so digusted by our actions to the point to wish for our demise is PROOF of our superiority: no other species is this self aware. Until alien species on or superior to our level are found, we are definitely the supreme beings of this world. For lack of a better term, WE ARE GODS. Flawed gods, but gods nonetheless (akin to the often cruel, stupid and petty gods of Greek Mythology). If we were to die, we would leave behind a much poorer world. Yes, you might claim that the natural world is beautiful but what is beauty without a means to COMPREHEND it? If we were given the option to burn the world, burn the moon, burn the solar system, in exchange for prosperity for all, then I'd say take it! Who ewould suffer in return? Animals who are barely aware of themselves, who, unlike some misanthropes claim, murder and rape for fun? I realize this is an unpopularopinion and that's why I am here. Until you can convince me otherwise, Mankind reigns supreme. (And no, my name is not Jack Harper, nor do I have the most awesome office in the galaxy :-P)","c_root_id_A":"cewtxu8","c_root_id_B":"cewsjrp","created_at_utc_A":1390487893,"created_at_utc_B":1390483129,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't think it's fair to assume human superiority over all other lifeforms. Humans are complex systems just like every other organism on the planet.","human_ref_B":"Value and meaning and importance only exist in the minds of those who value things. As humans, it makes sense that we would value ourselves more than other species, I suppose, but lots of humans also value the beauty of variety of life and relate to nature more broadly than just humanity. Also, you're just assuming we are the only sentient species. I think you're wrong. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that, for example, whales and dolphins are highly aware. We just don't have the same physical traits that allow us all to speak each others' languages.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4764.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"g8erz4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The scene in Black Panther where the white guy tries to speak and some of the black people starts making monkey noises and the leader says \u201cYOU do not get the speak here\u201d is pretty racist. I\u2019m not even talking about this movie as a whole, and I\u2019m not even talking about the fact that they\u2019re making monkey noises because the leader \u201cM\u2019Baku\u201d is the leader of a group whose mascot is an ape. (Although I think an argument could still be made.) I\u2019m mostly talking about the fact that they wouldn\u2019t let the white guys speaking seemingly just because he was white? Perhaps it was because he was not from Africa or even just from Wakanda. But I have to say I saw this movie in a theatre and the reaction of the crowd towards this scene was honestly scary. People were cheering and excited. I can\u2019t help but feel that if the roles were reversed, a black man tried to speak and the white people told him he\u2019s not allowed to speak, either A. People would be angry and it would be wildly racist, or B. It would be racist within the context of the film and the white people would essentially be the \u201cvillains\u201d of that film.","c_root_id_A":"foq5d9v","c_root_id_B":"foq3qhv","created_at_utc_A":1587983594,"created_at_utc_B":1587981902,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Wasn't that ultimately the point of the movie? Wakanda was backwards as a result of its isolation. They had been hoarding technology and power for themselves when really they could have been doing a lot of help to the outside world. It's meant to be an analogy where Wakanda plays the role of \"white privilege\", so having them put down a white guy in a situation where he's an outsider and a minority, fits the analogy. The notion was to show white people in Wakanda get treated the way black people do in America. ​ Audience members cheering that treatment are dummies, but hopefully they learned a lesson by the end of the movie.","human_ref_B":"Why do you assume it's because he is white? They're are many reasons a person may not be permitted to speak in a royal court. Etiquette, status, maybe something the character did. Just because he's the only white man in the room doesn't mean that's the reason he was told to be quiet. Edit: reread your post and you kind of address this but it's still a valid point, for it to be racist it has to be based on race and that's an assumption on your part. The reaction compared to what might happen if the roles were reversed has no relevance to this film.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1692.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"72kt8a","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: It is immoral to expect or require private citizens to stand for the anthem. As a child, I remember being told to recite the pledge and put my hand on my heart for the anthem, and doing so only reluctantly. I knew vaguely what I was supporting, but there was never a satisfactory why. Now, in my adult life, I have that answer, but only after weighing seriously if my country as an institution was in fact worth supporting. But at the time I realized I was being compelled to show support for something I didn't really understand. There is something fundamentally wrong with requiring someone to show allegiance to the country. Enforcing patriotism invites either zealotry or hypocrisy. When we are required to show conviction, what was once genuine sentiment becomes lost in ritual. Standing for one's beliefs becomes compliance with the norm. Self-expression becomes banal conformity. Genuine respect cannot be compelled _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dnj7qp6","c_root_id_B":"dnj7xdt","created_at_utc_A":1506437502,"created_at_utc_B":1506437707,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe that children are able to opt out of the pledge of allegiance. There was a court case -West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where the supreme court struck down the ability for a school for force children to participate.","human_ref_B":"Let's firstly establish that we're talking about private businesses\/people here. Thankfully, there's been no actual attempt by the government to force people to stand. So from the point of view of, say, the NFL (because that's obviously what we're talking about), their success is defined solely on people liking them. The NFL fails if they lose their fans. Therefore, they have a BUSINESS interest in keeping the loyalty of the people who pay their salaries. If that means that you stand during the anthem, then that's what it means. You can complain all day about whether that SHOULD make someone stop watching football, but from the point of view of the NFL, what matters is that people keep watching. It has nothing to do with morality, or patriotism, or anything else. It has to do with appearance, just the same way that UPS requires uniforms and Chick-Fil-A employees all say \"My pleasure.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":205.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"72kt8a","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: It is immoral to expect or require private citizens to stand for the anthem. As a child, I remember being told to recite the pledge and put my hand on my heart for the anthem, and doing so only reluctantly. I knew vaguely what I was supporting, but there was never a satisfactory why. Now, in my adult life, I have that answer, but only after weighing seriously if my country as an institution was in fact worth supporting. But at the time I realized I was being compelled to show support for something I didn't really understand. There is something fundamentally wrong with requiring someone to show allegiance to the country. Enforcing patriotism invites either zealotry or hypocrisy. When we are required to show conviction, what was once genuine sentiment becomes lost in ritual. Standing for one's beliefs becomes compliance with the norm. Self-expression becomes banal conformity. Genuine respect cannot be compelled _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dnj91vl","c_root_id_B":"dnj7qp6","created_at_utc_A":1506438924,"created_at_utc_B":1506437502,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"While I agree that it would be immoral to require someone to stand for the pledge or the anthem, I don't think this requirement actually exists. I agree that there's social pressure involved, but I don't really see that as a matter of morality. There is no right\/wrong dichotomy involved, unless some attempt is made to enforce the social norm. That attempt itself is an immoral act, but not the expectation that that it'll be universally complied with. I see it as a fad, and think it'll go away in time. The anthem is just a song, and the pledge is stupid, and in the long run they'll fade away.","human_ref_B":"Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe that children are able to opt out of the pledge of allegiance. There was a court case -West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where the supreme court struck down the ability for a school for force children to participate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1422.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"72kt8a","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: It is immoral to expect or require private citizens to stand for the anthem. As a child, I remember being told to recite the pledge and put my hand on my heart for the anthem, and doing so only reluctantly. I knew vaguely what I was supporting, but there was never a satisfactory why. Now, in my adult life, I have that answer, but only after weighing seriously if my country as an institution was in fact worth supporting. But at the time I realized I was being compelled to show support for something I didn't really understand. There is something fundamentally wrong with requiring someone to show allegiance to the country. Enforcing patriotism invites either zealotry or hypocrisy. When we are required to show conviction, what was once genuine sentiment becomes lost in ritual. Standing for one's beliefs becomes compliance with the norm. Self-expression becomes banal conformity. Genuine respect cannot be compelled _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dnj9r0l","c_root_id_B":"dnjtmew","created_at_utc_A":1506439673,"created_at_utc_B":1506459790,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"All actions have meanings. Some are minor, some are major. Choosing to not stand for the anthem if you are physically capable is an extreme sign of disrespect. Now as a citizen of the US you have to right to disrespect anyone you wish without the government punishing you, but that does not reduce the insult that you are committing and does not mean that other citizens cannot react to said insults.","human_ref_B":"I'm Canadian, so I have a different perspective. We don't have any sort of pledge of allegiance, although people who assume Canadian citizenship are required to take an oath. Those of us born with Canadian citizenship have no such requirement. As for the anthem, though, I think it's a matter of respect. I stand for the US national anthem when I'm at sporting events in the US, and when I visited Fort Henry in Baltimore. Your country is not my country; I feel zero allegiance to it. But I respect it, so I stand. And I feel a great deal of pride in my own country, Canada, to the point where I can get a little emotional watching the gold medal ceremony if a Canadian wins gold at the Olympics. Equally, I think it's a private individual's prerogative not to stand if (s)he doesn't want to, but it is showing a major amount of disrespect, and I'm not sure that's the most productive way to make things better. I think athletes should stand, and if they can't, then stay in the locker room until the anthem is over. It's their decision to make, however. You can respect a place without feeling it is perfect. In fact, you can respect the people who live in a place, and stand for them, without feeling any respect for the place at all. So am I disrespectful when I stand for the US anthem, as a foreigner? Not at all. I'm respecting those who feel people should stand. I'm respecting that I'm an honoured guest. Also, if a person really feels that the country where they live does not represent their ethic, the person owes a duty to themselves to pursue the possibility of relocating somewhere that does. That's about respecting *yourself*. (Yes, I realize not all Americans who are dissatisfied with the U.S. have the means to leave, or have countries that would accept them, but many do.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20117.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"72kt8a","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"CMV: It is immoral to expect or require private citizens to stand for the anthem. As a child, I remember being told to recite the pledge and put my hand on my heart for the anthem, and doing so only reluctantly. I knew vaguely what I was supporting, but there was never a satisfactory why. Now, in my adult life, I have that answer, but only after weighing seriously if my country as an institution was in fact worth supporting. But at the time I realized I was being compelled to show support for something I didn't really understand. There is something fundamentally wrong with requiring someone to show allegiance to the country. Enforcing patriotism invites either zealotry or hypocrisy. When we are required to show conviction, what was once genuine sentiment becomes lost in ritual. Standing for one's beliefs becomes compliance with the norm. Self-expression becomes banal conformity. Genuine respect cannot be compelled _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dnjtmew","c_root_id_B":"dnjc2x5","created_at_utc_A":1506459790,"created_at_utc_B":1506442105,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm Canadian, so I have a different perspective. We don't have any sort of pledge of allegiance, although people who assume Canadian citizenship are required to take an oath. Those of us born with Canadian citizenship have no such requirement. As for the anthem, though, I think it's a matter of respect. I stand for the US national anthem when I'm at sporting events in the US, and when I visited Fort Henry in Baltimore. Your country is not my country; I feel zero allegiance to it. But I respect it, so I stand. And I feel a great deal of pride in my own country, Canada, to the point where I can get a little emotional watching the gold medal ceremony if a Canadian wins gold at the Olympics. Equally, I think it's a private individual's prerogative not to stand if (s)he doesn't want to, but it is showing a major amount of disrespect, and I'm not sure that's the most productive way to make things better. I think athletes should stand, and if they can't, then stay in the locker room until the anthem is over. It's their decision to make, however. You can respect a place without feeling it is perfect. In fact, you can respect the people who live in a place, and stand for them, without feeling any respect for the place at all. So am I disrespectful when I stand for the US anthem, as a foreigner? Not at all. I'm respecting those who feel people should stand. I'm respecting that I'm an honoured guest. Also, if a person really feels that the country where they live does not represent their ethic, the person owes a duty to themselves to pursue the possibility of relocating somewhere that does. That's about respecting *yourself*. (Yes, I realize not all Americans who are dissatisfied with the U.S. have the means to leave, or have countries that would accept them, but many do.)","human_ref_B":">Genuine respect cannot be compelled. The outrage doesn't come from non-compliance. The outrage comes from the lack of genuine respect. I would expect a citizen of a country to have genuine respect for their own country. Genuine disrespect is offensive","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17685.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw9c7m3","c_root_id_B":"cw9fbhe","created_at_utc_A":1445549743,"created_at_utc_B":1445554824,"score_A":11,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"In the 1920s you could get by as a 6th grade drop out. 1950s, 8th grade. '80s, high school. '90s, college. Why? As society advances, so must education. Right now we're at a bottleneck: 1. Old people aren't retiring because pensions disappeared and HC costs went up. So no new blood can filter up 2. The screening effect 3. Glut of unnecessary degrees. Well, education is necessary; just the degrees don't translate well to a job. College is the new high school. Because of the additional cost and additional requirement of education, it should be free. Reset the college bar at graduate degrees. Or not, all education should be free. I don't want an otherwise talented person to drop out due to costs.","human_ref_B":"Investment in Human Capital. That is in short why I think making college education more affordable is crucial to our success as a country. I think you actually did a great job of explaining how America's issue isn't with the enrollment rate, but its with the quality of the education, and ones ability to get a job after completing college. Despite the fact that so many American citizens go to college, we don't seem to be utilizing the time they spend there effectively. For instance, despite the the vast number of attendees, we still rank 21st in the world in percentage of high-skilled employment. You were right when you said that America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education. Unfortunately, enrollment in a college program, and leaving with a college degree, specifically a specialized degree, are two different things. I get where you are coming from when you're saying that 30,000 isn't *really* a huge burden, and again, I think you're right. However, people *see* it as a huge burden and act accordingly. Here's a good article on why it seems the poor tend to drop out. Surprise... It's money, and lack of support from family, who also tend to not have money. I don't agree with the tax, because it hasn't proven to be an effective way to actually raise money, but I do believe that the government should look to ways to help those most in need. The poor specifically have a difficult time making it through college. Many have to work and take care of a family, while trying to juggle the rigors of higher education. If we want people to learn effectively, and take that knowledge back out to the market, we first have to get them to complete the courses. And if people are dropping out to avoid the potential costs then it was a wasted loan to begin with. The gov isn't making the return it could. They don't really want the money back on the loan. They wanted it payed forward in taxes from your humongous paycheck, thanks to getting that education.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5081.0,"score_ratio":2.2727272727} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw9fbhe","c_root_id_B":"cw9966o","created_at_utc_A":1445554824,"created_at_utc_B":1445545198,"score_A":25,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Investment in Human Capital. That is in short why I think making college education more affordable is crucial to our success as a country. I think you actually did a great job of explaining how America's issue isn't with the enrollment rate, but its with the quality of the education, and ones ability to get a job after completing college. Despite the fact that so many American citizens go to college, we don't seem to be utilizing the time they spend there effectively. For instance, despite the the vast number of attendees, we still rank 21st in the world in percentage of high-skilled employment. You were right when you said that America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education. Unfortunately, enrollment in a college program, and leaving with a college degree, specifically a specialized degree, are two different things. I get where you are coming from when you're saying that 30,000 isn't *really* a huge burden, and again, I think you're right. However, people *see* it as a huge burden and act accordingly. Here's a good article on why it seems the poor tend to drop out. Surprise... It's money, and lack of support from family, who also tend to not have money. I don't agree with the tax, because it hasn't proven to be an effective way to actually raise money, but I do believe that the government should look to ways to help those most in need. The poor specifically have a difficult time making it through college. Many have to work and take care of a family, while trying to juggle the rigors of higher education. If we want people to learn effectively, and take that knowledge back out to the market, we first have to get them to complete the courses. And if people are dropping out to avoid the potential costs then it was a wasted loan to begin with. The gov isn't making the return it could. They don't really want the money back on the loan. They wanted it payed forward in taxes from your humongous paycheck, thanks to getting that education.","human_ref_B":"Our high enrollment rate doesn't excuse that college costs much more than it used to here. \/u\/voiceinthewilderness made a well-adjusted summary, which incidentally includes new housing burdens as well, making tuition even more burdensome: > Just as a point of reference. I tried to look at how much things have changed over the years. Used 1971 because it was a good 2 generations ago and I could find mortgage interest rates for back then. I used the University of Minnesota because I could find their tuition rates. > Used 2014 dollars for everything. Assumed all parties went to college. For the 1971's, I assumed they paid the full tuition. For the 2014's I assumed they paid HALF of the posted tuition. Used resident undergrad tuition rates, cost of 4 annual years. Used years 67-71 for '71s and 10-14 for '14s. Used young men (ages 25-34) and young families (ages 25-34). Assumed property taxes are at 1.5% of value of house and insurance is .75% of value of house. Held this constant for 1971 and 2014. For young men, I had them buying a house that cost 60% of the median at the time. For young families I had them buying a house that cost 80% of the median at the time. > Young Men|Income|House Price|Down Payment|Monthly PITI|Pct. of Income to PITI|Cost Of Tuition :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- 1971|$44,646|$86,000|$17,200|$655|17.6%|$8,000 2014|$36,097|$170,000|$34,000|$950|31.6%|$23,500 > Young Families|Income|House Price|Down Payment|Monthly PITI|Pct. of Income to PITI|Cost Of Tuition :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- 1971|$53,522|$115,000|$23,000|$875|19.6%|$16,000 2014|$53,477|$227,000|$45,400|$1,267|28.4%|$47,000 > Sources: > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/hhes\/www\/income\/data\/historical\/families\/ (Table P-11) > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/hhes\/www\/income\/data\/historical\/people\/ (Table P-8) > http:\/\/www.oir.umn.edu\/static\/tuition\/TuitionUMNTC.pdf > http:\/\/www.freddiemac.com\/pmms\/pmms30.htm > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/construction\/nrs\/pdf\/uspricemon.pdf > Mortgage Calc: http:\/\/www.mlcalc.com\/ > Edit: Bumped '71 tuition up from $7K to $8k as I used wrong years in initial calc. > Added description of college tuition calc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9626.0,"score_ratio":12.5} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw99isf","c_root_id_B":"cw9fbhe","created_at_utc_A":1445545707,"created_at_utc_B":1445554824,"score_A":3,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"First off, I did enjoy reading this and nice use of sources to back up your info, but you did not back up everything you stated. Secondly, you have not addressed your title. You have merely said that Sander's idea won't work. You have not explained why Sander's idea would be a waste of tax payers dollars or how his idea would not fix the issue it has been intended to fix. **As I am understanding it though, you are trying to say that his idea cannot fix the issue because their is no issue to be fixed?** I do believe that the debt that is accumulated while attending college can be paid off it is just difficult to do. Your statistic stating that only 2.5% of all diploma holders are unemployed may be misrepresenting. This means 97.5% are employed. They can be employed anywhere including as needed as a bus boy at your local pizza shop but how many of them are employed in their degree's field and make over $60,000? Just some food for thought.","human_ref_B":"Investment in Human Capital. That is in short why I think making college education more affordable is crucial to our success as a country. I think you actually did a great job of explaining how America's issue isn't with the enrollment rate, but its with the quality of the education, and ones ability to get a job after completing college. Despite the fact that so many American citizens go to college, we don't seem to be utilizing the time they spend there effectively. For instance, despite the the vast number of attendees, we still rank 21st in the world in percentage of high-skilled employment. You were right when you said that America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education. Unfortunately, enrollment in a college program, and leaving with a college degree, specifically a specialized degree, are two different things. I get where you are coming from when you're saying that 30,000 isn't *really* a huge burden, and again, I think you're right. However, people *see* it as a huge burden and act accordingly. Here's a good article on why it seems the poor tend to drop out. Surprise... It's money, and lack of support from family, who also tend to not have money. I don't agree with the tax, because it hasn't proven to be an effective way to actually raise money, but I do believe that the government should look to ways to help those most in need. The poor specifically have a difficult time making it through college. Many have to work and take care of a family, while trying to juggle the rigors of higher education. If we want people to learn effectively, and take that knowledge back out to the market, we first have to get them to complete the courses. And if people are dropping out to avoid the potential costs then it was a wasted loan to begin with. The gov isn't making the return it could. They don't really want the money back on the loan. They wanted it payed forward in taxes from your humongous paycheck, thanks to getting that education.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9117.0,"score_ratio":8.3333333333} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw9fbhe","c_root_id_B":"cw9b1mg","created_at_utc_A":1445554824,"created_at_utc_B":1445547936,"score_A":25,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Investment in Human Capital. That is in short why I think making college education more affordable is crucial to our success as a country. I think you actually did a great job of explaining how America's issue isn't with the enrollment rate, but its with the quality of the education, and ones ability to get a job after completing college. Despite the fact that so many American citizens go to college, we don't seem to be utilizing the time they spend there effectively. For instance, despite the the vast number of attendees, we still rank 21st in the world in percentage of high-skilled employment. You were right when you said that America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education. Unfortunately, enrollment in a college program, and leaving with a college degree, specifically a specialized degree, are two different things. I get where you are coming from when you're saying that 30,000 isn't *really* a huge burden, and again, I think you're right. However, people *see* it as a huge burden and act accordingly. Here's a good article on why it seems the poor tend to drop out. Surprise... It's money, and lack of support from family, who also tend to not have money. I don't agree with the tax, because it hasn't proven to be an effective way to actually raise money, but I do believe that the government should look to ways to help those most in need. The poor specifically have a difficult time making it through college. Many have to work and take care of a family, while trying to juggle the rigors of higher education. If we want people to learn effectively, and take that knowledge back out to the market, we first have to get them to complete the courses. And if people are dropping out to avoid the potential costs then it was a wasted loan to begin with. The gov isn't making the return it could. They don't really want the money back on the loan. They wanted it payed forward in taxes from your humongous paycheck, thanks to getting that education.","human_ref_B":"The median debt figure from Brookings includes borrowers from decades ago until now. The median debt levels of recent grads are bound to be much higher.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6888.0,"score_ratio":12.5} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw9c7m3","c_root_id_B":"cw9966o","created_at_utc_A":1445549743,"created_at_utc_B":1445545198,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In the 1920s you could get by as a 6th grade drop out. 1950s, 8th grade. '80s, high school. '90s, college. Why? As society advances, so must education. Right now we're at a bottleneck: 1. Old people aren't retiring because pensions disappeared and HC costs went up. So no new blood can filter up 2. The screening effect 3. Glut of unnecessary degrees. Well, education is necessary; just the degrees don't translate well to a job. College is the new high school. Because of the additional cost and additional requirement of education, it should be free. Reset the college bar at graduate degrees. Or not, all education should be free. I don't want an otherwise talented person to drop out due to costs.","human_ref_B":"Our high enrollment rate doesn't excuse that college costs much more than it used to here. \/u\/voiceinthewilderness made a well-adjusted summary, which incidentally includes new housing burdens as well, making tuition even more burdensome: > Just as a point of reference. I tried to look at how much things have changed over the years. Used 1971 because it was a good 2 generations ago and I could find mortgage interest rates for back then. I used the University of Minnesota because I could find their tuition rates. > Used 2014 dollars for everything. Assumed all parties went to college. For the 1971's, I assumed they paid the full tuition. For the 2014's I assumed they paid HALF of the posted tuition. Used resident undergrad tuition rates, cost of 4 annual years. Used years 67-71 for '71s and 10-14 for '14s. Used young men (ages 25-34) and young families (ages 25-34). Assumed property taxes are at 1.5% of value of house and insurance is .75% of value of house. Held this constant for 1971 and 2014. For young men, I had them buying a house that cost 60% of the median at the time. For young families I had them buying a house that cost 80% of the median at the time. > Young Men|Income|House Price|Down Payment|Monthly PITI|Pct. of Income to PITI|Cost Of Tuition :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- 1971|$44,646|$86,000|$17,200|$655|17.6%|$8,000 2014|$36,097|$170,000|$34,000|$950|31.6%|$23,500 > Young Families|Income|House Price|Down Payment|Monthly PITI|Pct. of Income to PITI|Cost Of Tuition :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- 1971|$53,522|$115,000|$23,000|$875|19.6%|$16,000 2014|$53,477|$227,000|$45,400|$1,267|28.4%|$47,000 > Sources: > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/hhes\/www\/income\/data\/historical\/families\/ (Table P-11) > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/hhes\/www\/income\/data\/historical\/people\/ (Table P-8) > http:\/\/www.oir.umn.edu\/static\/tuition\/TuitionUMNTC.pdf > http:\/\/www.freddiemac.com\/pmms\/pmms30.htm > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/construction\/nrs\/pdf\/uspricemon.pdf > Mortgage Calc: http:\/\/www.mlcalc.com\/ > Edit: Bumped '71 tuition up from $7K to $8k as I used wrong years in initial calc. > Added description of college tuition calc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4545.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw99isf","c_root_id_B":"cw9c7m3","created_at_utc_A":1445545707,"created_at_utc_B":1445549743,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"First off, I did enjoy reading this and nice use of sources to back up your info, but you did not back up everything you stated. Secondly, you have not addressed your title. You have merely said that Sander's idea won't work. You have not explained why Sander's idea would be a waste of tax payers dollars or how his idea would not fix the issue it has been intended to fix. **As I am understanding it though, you are trying to say that his idea cannot fix the issue because their is no issue to be fixed?** I do believe that the debt that is accumulated while attending college can be paid off it is just difficult to do. Your statistic stating that only 2.5% of all diploma holders are unemployed may be misrepresenting. This means 97.5% are employed. They can be employed anywhere including as needed as a bus boy at your local pizza shop but how many of them are employed in their degree's field and make over $60,000? Just some food for thought.","human_ref_B":"In the 1920s you could get by as a 6th grade drop out. 1950s, 8th grade. '80s, high school. '90s, college. Why? As society advances, so must education. Right now we're at a bottleneck: 1. Old people aren't retiring because pensions disappeared and HC costs went up. So no new blood can filter up 2. The screening effect 3. Glut of unnecessary degrees. Well, education is necessary; just the degrees don't translate well to a job. College is the new high school. Because of the additional cost and additional requirement of education, it should be free. Reset the college bar at graduate degrees. Or not, all education should be free. I don't want an otherwise talented person to drop out due to costs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4036.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw9c7m3","c_root_id_B":"cw9b1mg","created_at_utc_A":1445549743,"created_at_utc_B":1445547936,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In the 1920s you could get by as a 6th grade drop out. 1950s, 8th grade. '80s, high school. '90s, college. Why? As society advances, so must education. Right now we're at a bottleneck: 1. Old people aren't retiring because pensions disappeared and HC costs went up. So no new blood can filter up 2. The screening effect 3. Glut of unnecessary degrees. Well, education is necessary; just the degrees don't translate well to a job. College is the new high school. Because of the additional cost and additional requirement of education, it should be free. Reset the college bar at graduate degrees. Or not, all education should be free. I don't want an otherwise talented person to drop out due to costs.","human_ref_B":"The median debt figure from Brookings includes borrowers from decades ago until now. The median debt levels of recent grads are bound to be much higher.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1807.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw9966o","c_root_id_B":"cw9g3zu","created_at_utc_A":1445545198,"created_at_utc_B":1445556173,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Our high enrollment rate doesn't excuse that college costs much more than it used to here. \/u\/voiceinthewilderness made a well-adjusted summary, which incidentally includes new housing burdens as well, making tuition even more burdensome: > Just as a point of reference. I tried to look at how much things have changed over the years. Used 1971 because it was a good 2 generations ago and I could find mortgage interest rates for back then. I used the University of Minnesota because I could find their tuition rates. > Used 2014 dollars for everything. Assumed all parties went to college. For the 1971's, I assumed they paid the full tuition. For the 2014's I assumed they paid HALF of the posted tuition. Used resident undergrad tuition rates, cost of 4 annual years. Used years 67-71 for '71s and 10-14 for '14s. Used young men (ages 25-34) and young families (ages 25-34). Assumed property taxes are at 1.5% of value of house and insurance is .75% of value of house. Held this constant for 1971 and 2014. For young men, I had them buying a house that cost 60% of the median at the time. For young families I had them buying a house that cost 80% of the median at the time. > Young Men|Income|House Price|Down Payment|Monthly PITI|Pct. of Income to PITI|Cost Of Tuition :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- 1971|$44,646|$86,000|$17,200|$655|17.6%|$8,000 2014|$36,097|$170,000|$34,000|$950|31.6%|$23,500 > Young Families|Income|House Price|Down Payment|Monthly PITI|Pct. of Income to PITI|Cost Of Tuition :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- 1971|$53,522|$115,000|$23,000|$875|19.6%|$16,000 2014|$53,477|$227,000|$45,400|$1,267|28.4%|$47,000 > Sources: > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/hhes\/www\/income\/data\/historical\/families\/ (Table P-11) > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/hhes\/www\/income\/data\/historical\/people\/ (Table P-8) > http:\/\/www.oir.umn.edu\/static\/tuition\/TuitionUMNTC.pdf > http:\/\/www.freddiemac.com\/pmms\/pmms30.htm > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/construction\/nrs\/pdf\/uspricemon.pdf > Mortgage Calc: http:\/\/www.mlcalc.com\/ > Edit: Bumped '71 tuition up from $7K to $8k as I used wrong years in initial calc. > Added description of college tuition calc.","human_ref_B":">My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world. This rate includes all post-secondary programs, including 6 week Community College certifications, Associates degrees, etc. There's a difference between \"all Americans can afford to go to college\" and \"all Americans can afford at least a 6 week phlebotomy certificate.\" > The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). Median debt for new grads in 2015 is $35k. In 2005 it was $20k. That's a 75% increase in a 10 year period. (source). It's not surprising that the average graduate has a low level of debt since this is a new and accelerating phenomenon. >What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) That's for bachelor's *and higher.* Unemployment for a BA is 3.5%, with a median earnings of $57k per year (BLS data). >When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. The WaPo is missing that default on a student loan does not mean it's never repaid. On average, the government recovers ~80% of the principle of it's loans in default (source). This is comparable to the amount banks typically recover in a foreclosure or other secured loan. Really, it's a market. The cost of student loans will probably never exceed the benefit of going to college or people would stop going to college. The real crisis is that new graduates are not participating in the economy in the same way that they were even 5 or 10 years ago. This decreases demand for housing, cars, and consumer goods. We need new grads to be able to spend money, and their disposable income is being increasingly sucked up by debt, and it is rising at an alarming rate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10975.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw99isf","c_root_id_B":"cw9g3zu","created_at_utc_A":1445545707,"created_at_utc_B":1445556173,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"First off, I did enjoy reading this and nice use of sources to back up your info, but you did not back up everything you stated. Secondly, you have not addressed your title. You have merely said that Sander's idea won't work. You have not explained why Sander's idea would be a waste of tax payers dollars or how his idea would not fix the issue it has been intended to fix. **As I am understanding it though, you are trying to say that his idea cannot fix the issue because their is no issue to be fixed?** I do believe that the debt that is accumulated while attending college can be paid off it is just difficult to do. Your statistic stating that only 2.5% of all diploma holders are unemployed may be misrepresenting. This means 97.5% are employed. They can be employed anywhere including as needed as a bus boy at your local pizza shop but how many of them are employed in their degree's field and make over $60,000? Just some food for thought.","human_ref_B":">My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world. This rate includes all post-secondary programs, including 6 week Community College certifications, Associates degrees, etc. There's a difference between \"all Americans can afford to go to college\" and \"all Americans can afford at least a 6 week phlebotomy certificate.\" > The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). Median debt for new grads in 2015 is $35k. In 2005 it was $20k. That's a 75% increase in a 10 year period. (source). It's not surprising that the average graduate has a low level of debt since this is a new and accelerating phenomenon. >What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) That's for bachelor's *and higher.* Unemployment for a BA is 3.5%, with a median earnings of $57k per year (BLS data). >When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. The WaPo is missing that default on a student loan does not mean it's never repaid. On average, the government recovers ~80% of the principle of it's loans in default (source). This is comparable to the amount banks typically recover in a foreclosure or other secured loan. Really, it's a market. The cost of student loans will probably never exceed the benefit of going to college or people would stop going to college. The real crisis is that new graduates are not participating in the economy in the same way that they were even 5 or 10 years ago. This decreases demand for housing, cars, and consumer goods. We need new grads to be able to spend money, and their disposable income is being increasingly sucked up by debt, and it is rising at an alarming rate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10466.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw9b1mg","c_root_id_B":"cw9g3zu","created_at_utc_A":1445547936,"created_at_utc_B":1445556173,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The median debt figure from Brookings includes borrowers from decades ago until now. The median debt levels of recent grads are bound to be much higher.","human_ref_B":">My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world. This rate includes all post-secondary programs, including 6 week Community College certifications, Associates degrees, etc. There's a difference between \"all Americans can afford to go to college\" and \"all Americans can afford at least a 6 week phlebotomy certificate.\" > The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). Median debt for new grads in 2015 is $35k. In 2005 it was $20k. That's a 75% increase in a 10 year period. (source). It's not surprising that the average graduate has a low level of debt since this is a new and accelerating phenomenon. >What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) That's for bachelor's *and higher.* Unemployment for a BA is 3.5%, with a median earnings of $57k per year (BLS data). >When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. The WaPo is missing that default on a student loan does not mean it's never repaid. On average, the government recovers ~80% of the principle of it's loans in default (source). This is comparable to the amount banks typically recover in a foreclosure or other secured loan. Really, it's a market. The cost of student loans will probably never exceed the benefit of going to college or people would stop going to college. The real crisis is that new graduates are not participating in the economy in the same way that they were even 5 or 10 years ago. This decreases demand for housing, cars, and consumer goods. We need new grads to be able to spend money, and their disposable income is being increasingly sucked up by debt, and it is rising at an alarming rate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8237.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"3pt9b9","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"CMV: Bernie Sanders free public college plan would be a waste of taxpayers dollars and not fix the issue it's seeking to fix There's a few thing I find wrong with Bernie's plans in general, but I think his college plan sticks out as particularly worrisome. Before evaluating the feasibility of his plans, let's examine the problem itself. From his website he states: > **\"It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades\"** My first question is: Who is it that can't afford to get to go the college? America has the 2nd highest enrollment rate in tertiary education in the world.Source On top of that the current student loans system accept virtually everyone, especially lower income families who typically receive pell grants. Source So it seems that the first part of Bernie statement about people not going to school because they can't afford it is false. Everyone who wants to and has the grades is going to college. So let's examined the \"burdened with debt\" statement. College is certainly extremely expensive, especially if you look at the sticker price alone. Studies by the fed have actually shown the easily avaiablity of student loans is one of the reasons that prices of college have gone up(Source). The fact is, that very few people actually pay that amount. In fact the median student debt is around 29,000(Source). Not exactly a stunning amount of money for a lifetime of education. Undoubtedly Bernie supporters will argue that a college loan of 30,000 being the the median still leaving alot of room for people above that to struggle. But that doesn't bear out the facts, the the figure mentioned above includes graduate students, medical students, law students etc. Only two percent of undergraduates take out loans for more than 50,000(Source). In fact, the **smaller** the amount of loans you have when you leave college the **more** likely you are you default(Source). This is due to a majority of defaults coming from people who dropped or went to a for profit college. This would suggest the problem is that we're either sending people to colleges that shouldn't be there, or we're sending them to the wrong colleges. What's life like for those that do graduate? Unemployment rate for bachelor degree holders is at 2.5%(Source) The median debt was $13,000, and seventy-five percent of borrowers had less than $29,000. These burdens are relatively modest given the annual earnings of these households. The average annual wage earnings among this population was $71,700. (Source). So, the problem that Bernie is talking about doesn't really exist, at least not nearly on the scale that Sanders thinks it does. For most people college cost about the the price of an up end new car, which is pretty good deal considering that we have the best university system in the world. But let's still go down his list of six step he would take, just for fun. >Step 1 MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. >This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America. Lets first note that Bernie plan is make schools ***tuition*** free, students would still be taking out loans to pay for cost of living. He wants us to be like European countries it seems, but that would vastly contradict his desire to make more people go to college. As I pointed out earlier, America has among the highest enrollment rate in the world. Germany is around 60, when America is around 90. Germans can afford free college in part because they bar a significant portion of their population from going there. Finland is around our enrollment rates, I'll give him that, but it's also a much smaller country and its universities still aren't as good as ours. >2.STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS. Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates. >3.SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES. Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%. I find it quite obnoxious that he decided to split this into 2 separate points, and even more obnoxious at how incredibly deceiving he's being. The amount 110 billion number is based of an incredibly silly government accounting practice. When the CBO determines how much money the government makes off loans, it models the student loan repayment that to a that of a US Treasury Bond. Which is completely and utterly silly, because the US government has never defaulted on their loan payments whereas student do. While it's true the government can garnish wages to eventually get the money back, the missed pay schedule results in a lose of money to inflation. When the CBO applies more standard accounting practices to the student loan program it finds that there is a small profit some years, and that's not taking into account the administrative cost. Source >4.ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY\u2019S LOW INTEREST RATES. >It makes no sense that you ***can get an auto loan today*** with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today\u2019s low interest rates. Once again, Bernie seems to lack an understanding of economics. Auto loans are secured by the car as collateral and on top of that the bank making those loans do a credit check, there is no collateral with government student loans except the possibly of garnishing future wages, which still results in a loss of money and the government gives them out to anyone that needs one. If the government was making all this money off of student loans, private industry would be getting in on the action. And while I'm not against possibility of refinancing for those struggling, remember as shown earlier, students loans are not a major burden for the majority of the people who have them. What would probably be better is that they switch to an Income Based Repayment System, where they pay back their student loans as percentage of income. This is available, but not many people know about it. >5.ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE. No major criticisms. I have no problem with Bernie giving more help to low income students with programs such as work-study. I think Bernie is vastly underestimating how much aid low income students are currently receiving, but depending on the number I could get behind a little more of it. >6.FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS. The cost of this plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Oh yes! The answer to the big question: How are you going to pay for this The only peer reviewed model I've seen on FTT and it shows a net decrease in revenue, any money made up by the tax will be lost by a shrinking revenues elsewhere in economy. Source And Bernie talks about other countries implementing them, but no country has a FTT that anywhere near what Bernie's asking for. Sweden did and it was a disaster raising less than 1\/10th of revenue expected, and that was offset by the lose of money in capital gains tax. The tax was repealed. Read more about it below. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to be somewhat through. I'm not saying we shouldn't change anything about our college system, but Bernie's solution don't seem to come close to addressing the problems and indeed may make them worse. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cw99isf","c_root_id_B":"cw9966o","created_at_utc_A":1445545707,"created_at_utc_B":1445545198,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"First off, I did enjoy reading this and nice use of sources to back up your info, but you did not back up everything you stated. Secondly, you have not addressed your title. You have merely said that Sander's idea won't work. You have not explained why Sander's idea would be a waste of tax payers dollars or how his idea would not fix the issue it has been intended to fix. **As I am understanding it though, you are trying to say that his idea cannot fix the issue because their is no issue to be fixed?** I do believe that the debt that is accumulated while attending college can be paid off it is just difficult to do. Your statistic stating that only 2.5% of all diploma holders are unemployed may be misrepresenting. This means 97.5% are employed. They can be employed anywhere including as needed as a bus boy at your local pizza shop but how many of them are employed in their degree's field and make over $60,000? Just some food for thought.","human_ref_B":"Our high enrollment rate doesn't excuse that college costs much more than it used to here. \/u\/voiceinthewilderness made a well-adjusted summary, which incidentally includes new housing burdens as well, making tuition even more burdensome: > Just as a point of reference. I tried to look at how much things have changed over the years. Used 1971 because it was a good 2 generations ago and I could find mortgage interest rates for back then. I used the University of Minnesota because I could find their tuition rates. > Used 2014 dollars for everything. Assumed all parties went to college. For the 1971's, I assumed they paid the full tuition. For the 2014's I assumed they paid HALF of the posted tuition. Used resident undergrad tuition rates, cost of 4 annual years. Used years 67-71 for '71s and 10-14 for '14s. Used young men (ages 25-34) and young families (ages 25-34). Assumed property taxes are at 1.5% of value of house and insurance is .75% of value of house. Held this constant for 1971 and 2014. For young men, I had them buying a house that cost 60% of the median at the time. For young families I had them buying a house that cost 80% of the median at the time. > Young Men|Income|House Price|Down Payment|Monthly PITI|Pct. of Income to PITI|Cost Of Tuition :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- 1971|$44,646|$86,000|$17,200|$655|17.6%|$8,000 2014|$36,097|$170,000|$34,000|$950|31.6%|$23,500 > Young Families|Income|House Price|Down Payment|Monthly PITI|Pct. of Income to PITI|Cost Of Tuition :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- 1971|$53,522|$115,000|$23,000|$875|19.6%|$16,000 2014|$53,477|$227,000|$45,400|$1,267|28.4%|$47,000 > Sources: > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/hhes\/www\/income\/data\/historical\/families\/ (Table P-11) > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/hhes\/www\/income\/data\/historical\/people\/ (Table P-8) > http:\/\/www.oir.umn.edu\/static\/tuition\/TuitionUMNTC.pdf > http:\/\/www.freddiemac.com\/pmms\/pmms30.htm > https:\/\/www.census.gov\/construction\/nrs\/pdf\/uspricemon.pdf > Mortgage Calc: http:\/\/www.mlcalc.com\/ > Edit: Bumped '71 tuition up from $7K to $8k as I used wrong years in initial calc. > Added description of college tuition calc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":509.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"stmw62","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: No fiction book should ever be illegal to for adults to read. Some qualifiers: - Libraries, bookstores, schools and individuals should be free to exclude whatever books they want from their shelves. - Publishers should continue to be free to impose any standards they wish, and only publish books that live up to those standards. They should also be free to include all the content\/trigger warnings they want. - People should be free to protest the existence of any book they want. - Some non-fiction books should possibly be illegal \u2013 such as manuals for creating chemical weapons. - Children under 18 should possibly be disallowed from reading certain fiction books. But to make it illegal to read or own a book, due to the (fictional) content is not in any way justifiable. I am not persuaded by the notion that some books should be banned because of the supposed deleterious effects they would have on society \u2013 for even if those effects were real, that is not reason enough to undermine this fairly basic and fundamental liberty \u2013 that adults can read what they want (and ignore what they don\u2019t).","c_root_id_A":"hx4u7nm","c_root_id_B":"hx5f73f","created_at_utc_A":1644986392,"created_at_utc_B":1645000482,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t think any are?","human_ref_B":"Censorship should be rare, and limited to the most obvious cases of direct harm. But setting up broad guidelines like \"fiction\" being an ultimate shield from that, would just set people up to use a fig leaf cover of making a call to action, an instruction manual, or a dissemination of tactical information, in the loosest framework of a fictional story possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14090.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"stmw62","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: No fiction book should ever be illegal to for adults to read. Some qualifiers: - Libraries, bookstores, schools and individuals should be free to exclude whatever books they want from their shelves. - Publishers should continue to be free to impose any standards they wish, and only publish books that live up to those standards. They should also be free to include all the content\/trigger warnings they want. - People should be free to protest the existence of any book they want. - Some non-fiction books should possibly be illegal \u2013 such as manuals for creating chemical weapons. - Children under 18 should possibly be disallowed from reading certain fiction books. But to make it illegal to read or own a book, due to the (fictional) content is not in any way justifiable. I am not persuaded by the notion that some books should be banned because of the supposed deleterious effects they would have on society \u2013 for even if those effects were real, that is not reason enough to undermine this fairly basic and fundamental liberty \u2013 that adults can read what they want (and ignore what they don\u2019t).","c_root_id_A":"hx4u7nm","c_root_id_B":"hx5h41f","created_at_utc_A":1644986392,"created_at_utc_B":1645002033,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t think any are?","human_ref_B":"> But to make it illegal to read or own a book, due to the (fictional) content is not in any way justifiable. I am not persuaded by the notion that some books should be banned because of the supposed deleterious effects they would have on society \u2013 for even if those effects were real, that is not reason enough to undermine this fairly basic and fundamental liberty \u2013 that adults can read what they want (and ignore what they don\u2019t). What about text-based child pornography that is extensive and graphic in its details of children being raped? We already ban artificial *visual* depictions of child rape in most countries, so that would at least be consistent.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15641.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"stmw62","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: No fiction book should ever be illegal to for adults to read. Some qualifiers: - Libraries, bookstores, schools and individuals should be free to exclude whatever books they want from their shelves. - Publishers should continue to be free to impose any standards they wish, and only publish books that live up to those standards. They should also be free to include all the content\/trigger warnings they want. - People should be free to protest the existence of any book they want. - Some non-fiction books should possibly be illegal \u2013 such as manuals for creating chemical weapons. - Children under 18 should possibly be disallowed from reading certain fiction books. But to make it illegal to read or own a book, due to the (fictional) content is not in any way justifiable. I am not persuaded by the notion that some books should be banned because of the supposed deleterious effects they would have on society \u2013 for even if those effects were real, that is not reason enough to undermine this fairly basic and fundamental liberty \u2013 that adults can read what they want (and ignore what they don\u2019t).","c_root_id_A":"hx4u7nm","c_root_id_B":"hx7a5cu","created_at_utc_A":1644986392,"created_at_utc_B":1645034934,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I don\u2019t think any are?","human_ref_B":"I don't think a copy of any book (fiction or non-fiction) or information or really even intellectual property should be illegal to possess. I might carve out possessing dangerous state secrets like nuke launch codes or something might warrant restriction but that's pretty much it I think. Perhaps selling or distributing things might be a good thing to regulate like other people's private information that could be harmful but possessing it alone should not be a crime... probably.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":48542.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"stmw62","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"CMV: No fiction book should ever be illegal to for adults to read. Some qualifiers: - Libraries, bookstores, schools and individuals should be free to exclude whatever books they want from their shelves. - Publishers should continue to be free to impose any standards they wish, and only publish books that live up to those standards. They should also be free to include all the content\/trigger warnings they want. - People should be free to protest the existence of any book they want. - Some non-fiction books should possibly be illegal \u2013 such as manuals for creating chemical weapons. - Children under 18 should possibly be disallowed from reading certain fiction books. But to make it illegal to read or own a book, due to the (fictional) content is not in any way justifiable. I am not persuaded by the notion that some books should be banned because of the supposed deleterious effects they would have on society \u2013 for even if those effects were real, that is not reason enough to undermine this fairly basic and fundamental liberty \u2013 that adults can read what they want (and ignore what they don\u2019t).","c_root_id_A":"hx5qo0a","c_root_id_B":"hx7a5cu","created_at_utc_A":1645009719,"created_at_utc_B":1645034934,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The argument is similar to \"no joke should ever be excluded from free speech\". People would simply make defamatory statements and give them a funny twist to claim that they were a joke.","human_ref_B":"I don't think a copy of any book (fiction or non-fiction) or information or really even intellectual property should be illegal to possess. I might carve out possessing dangerous state secrets like nuke launch codes or something might warrant restriction but that's pretty much it I think. Perhaps selling or distributing things might be a good thing to regulate like other people's private information that could be harmful but possessing it alone should not be a crime... probably.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25215.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m0sjdm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Voting for someone with authoritarian tendencies, even if you agree with their politics, is never a good idea. Simple reason being is it opens the gates for future politicians with authoritarian tendencies whose politics you do not agree with, and when the institutional guardrails of democracy and civil rights are eroded, there is little standing in the way to protect you when that happens. Fascism and authoritarianism of any kind is never good because it always has the potential to turn bad fast with little checks and balances. Those in Congress who voted to overturn the election results on January 6th, after the Capitol had been attacked by a mob incited by the lie that the election was stolen, voted to install Trump as America\u2019s first dictator. It was a shameful chapter of American history, antithetical to the values the nation was founded on. Anyone who does not respect the pillars of democracy - mutual toleration, respecting the will of the people, and ensuring free and fair elections, is fundamentally unworthy to hold any elected office in American government. Respecting the outcome of elections and not working to poison democracy is the most basic, most reasonable line to draw, and supersedes any policy or political preference.","c_root_id_A":"gq9nz5j","c_root_id_B":"gq9nywt","created_at_utc_A":1615245420,"created_at_utc_B":1615245417,"score_A":69,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"It's not a one to one, because authoritarianism is fairly murky as is, but in cases of extreme strife like for example war, many leaders can become very authoritarian. For example, Abraham Lincoln lead what in any other circumstances would be an aggressively authoritarian government that arrested political prisoners, suspended habeus corpus, took direct control over the military, justified all of this as putting down the insurgency of the southern states, as he originally made it clear he wasn't even going to outlaw slavery, he took action due to the secession not slavery, ect. These are all hallmarks of a very authoritarian government, but this also was largely needed in this particular context, and what's more he was elected once again after all that, because people trusted that while he was authoritarian in putting down the insurgent states, he would not do that under other circumstances. Now many times this exact same thing happens, minus the stopping authoritarianism when not needed, but there is a case to be made that when a political situation devolves to far the only thing that solves it is authoritarian government power.","human_ref_B":"Would you consider second amendment rights being taken away, one of the most authoritarian things that can be done?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3.0,"score_ratio":8.625} {"post_id":"m0sjdm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Voting for someone with authoritarian tendencies, even if you agree with their politics, is never a good idea. Simple reason being is it opens the gates for future politicians with authoritarian tendencies whose politics you do not agree with, and when the institutional guardrails of democracy and civil rights are eroded, there is little standing in the way to protect you when that happens. Fascism and authoritarianism of any kind is never good because it always has the potential to turn bad fast with little checks and balances. Those in Congress who voted to overturn the election results on January 6th, after the Capitol had been attacked by a mob incited by the lie that the election was stolen, voted to install Trump as America\u2019s first dictator. It was a shameful chapter of American history, antithetical to the values the nation was founded on. Anyone who does not respect the pillars of democracy - mutual toleration, respecting the will of the people, and ensuring free and fair elections, is fundamentally unworthy to hold any elected office in American government. Respecting the outcome of elections and not working to poison democracy is the most basic, most reasonable line to draw, and supersedes any policy or political preference.","c_root_id_A":"gq9rh41","c_root_id_B":"gq9w8q9","created_at_utc_A":1615247266,"created_at_utc_B":1615249807,"score_A":12,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"did they vote to install trump as a dictator, or did they vote in line with the expectation their voting base has with them, that the election was stolen and that trump was the true elected president this is another example of liberal histrionics about this issue yes, trump was being a child who couldn't accept he lost the election. yes, that probably led to the riot. but if you're pretending like you're defending democracy from a dangerous demagogic fascist, and not just participating in a pointless partisan political game, i'm sorry, but you're kidding yourself. this is an era of fake politics, where simultaneously nothing we say really matters, while at the same time everyone is hyper partisan and overdramatic to get people to vote and care about a political situation where nothing fundamentally changes. its ridiculous and i'm tired of tolerating it. the same goes for the right, btw; you're being conned into participating in a system where the actual decisions are made far away from these endless dumb liberal vs conservative debates. its nauseating. if you really want to make changes, become a lobbyist, or become a finance economist and get on the federal reserve or the IMF board","human_ref_B":"As someone mentioned below, Lincoln was a pretty authoritarian president, and I'd also point to FDR as an example- he also interred US citizens, violated for the first time the ~150 year tradition of presidents not holding office for longer than two terms, and railroaded the New Deal through the Supreme Court with the threat of court-packing. If he had lived another 10-20 years, recent American history might look a lot different. I think that authoritarianism is a trade-off; the ability for a leader to do great things effectively, to slice through red tape and bureaucracy, allows unethical leaders to do bad things more effectively as well. Context is also important: Lincoln had the civil war, FDR had the Depression and WWII. If you are in a time of crisis, the ability for a leader to act swiftly and decisively is more important. I think in most cases I'd agree with the sentiment you're expressing, but \"authoritarian\" has a very strong negative connotation, where in my view it's more of a sliding scale, and the best point to be at on the scale is strongly dependant on the historical, geopolitical, and social context.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2541.0,"score_ratio":1.4166666667} {"post_id":"m0sjdm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Voting for someone with authoritarian tendencies, even if you agree with their politics, is never a good idea. Simple reason being is it opens the gates for future politicians with authoritarian tendencies whose politics you do not agree with, and when the institutional guardrails of democracy and civil rights are eroded, there is little standing in the way to protect you when that happens. Fascism and authoritarianism of any kind is never good because it always has the potential to turn bad fast with little checks and balances. Those in Congress who voted to overturn the election results on January 6th, after the Capitol had been attacked by a mob incited by the lie that the election was stolen, voted to install Trump as America\u2019s first dictator. It was a shameful chapter of American history, antithetical to the values the nation was founded on. Anyone who does not respect the pillars of democracy - mutual toleration, respecting the will of the people, and ensuring free and fair elections, is fundamentally unworthy to hold any elected office in American government. Respecting the outcome of elections and not working to poison democracy is the most basic, most reasonable line to draw, and supersedes any policy or political preference.","c_root_id_A":"gq9w8q9","c_root_id_B":"gq9nywt","created_at_utc_A":1615249807,"created_at_utc_B":1615245417,"score_A":17,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"As someone mentioned below, Lincoln was a pretty authoritarian president, and I'd also point to FDR as an example- he also interred US citizens, violated for the first time the ~150 year tradition of presidents not holding office for longer than two terms, and railroaded the New Deal through the Supreme Court with the threat of court-packing. If he had lived another 10-20 years, recent American history might look a lot different. I think that authoritarianism is a trade-off; the ability for a leader to do great things effectively, to slice through red tape and bureaucracy, allows unethical leaders to do bad things more effectively as well. Context is also important: Lincoln had the civil war, FDR had the Depression and WWII. If you are in a time of crisis, the ability for a leader to act swiftly and decisively is more important. I think in most cases I'd agree with the sentiment you're expressing, but \"authoritarian\" has a very strong negative connotation, where in my view it's more of a sliding scale, and the best point to be at on the scale is strongly dependant on the historical, geopolitical, and social context.","human_ref_B":"Would you consider second amendment rights being taken away, one of the most authoritarian things that can be done?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4390.0,"score_ratio":2.125} {"post_id":"m0sjdm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Voting for someone with authoritarian tendencies, even if you agree with their politics, is never a good idea. Simple reason being is it opens the gates for future politicians with authoritarian tendencies whose politics you do not agree with, and when the institutional guardrails of democracy and civil rights are eroded, there is little standing in the way to protect you when that happens. Fascism and authoritarianism of any kind is never good because it always has the potential to turn bad fast with little checks and balances. Those in Congress who voted to overturn the election results on January 6th, after the Capitol had been attacked by a mob incited by the lie that the election was stolen, voted to install Trump as America\u2019s first dictator. It was a shameful chapter of American history, antithetical to the values the nation was founded on. Anyone who does not respect the pillars of democracy - mutual toleration, respecting the will of the people, and ensuring free and fair elections, is fundamentally unworthy to hold any elected office in American government. Respecting the outcome of elections and not working to poison democracy is the most basic, most reasonable line to draw, and supersedes any policy or political preference.","c_root_id_A":"gq9vra9","c_root_id_B":"gq9w8q9","created_at_utc_A":1615249544,"created_at_utc_B":1615249807,"score_A":10,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":">Those in Congress who voted to overturn the election results on January 6th, after the Capitol had been attacked by a mob incited by the lie that the election was stolen, voted to install Trump as America\u2019s first dictator I'm sorry, but this is just ahistorical drivel. The exact powers that Trump was asking Congress to exercise are not only constitutionally appointed to Congress in explicit terms, they've also been used before in an American election. 1876, if you were wondering. Furthermore in 1800, Thomas Jefferson used the office of the vice presidency in exactly the way that Trump asked pence to do. He unilaterally certified votes from Georgia that did not meet the requirements to be certified. Had he not done so, the election would have gone to the house, where his side was at a disadvantage. Everything Trump did was both legal and fully constitutional as well as rooted in historical precedent. You're barking up the wrong tree. >not working to poison democracy well Trump would argue that the people who committed election fraud are the people poisoning democracy. And the basic truth of the matter is that no sufficient investigation actually occurred in the states that mattered. Furthermore, the Supreme Court refusing to hear Texas's case leaves on this supremely important legal question open to interpretation and abuse in future elections. It's actually bad that they didn't take it up and rule on the merits of his case.","human_ref_B":"As someone mentioned below, Lincoln was a pretty authoritarian president, and I'd also point to FDR as an example- he also interred US citizens, violated for the first time the ~150 year tradition of presidents not holding office for longer than two terms, and railroaded the New Deal through the Supreme Court with the threat of court-packing. If he had lived another 10-20 years, recent American history might look a lot different. I think that authoritarianism is a trade-off; the ability for a leader to do great things effectively, to slice through red tape and bureaucracy, allows unethical leaders to do bad things more effectively as well. Context is also important: Lincoln had the civil war, FDR had the Depression and WWII. If you are in a time of crisis, the ability for a leader to act swiftly and decisively is more important. I think in most cases I'd agree with the sentiment you're expressing, but \"authoritarian\" has a very strong negative connotation, where in my view it's more of a sliding scale, and the best point to be at on the scale is strongly dependant on the historical, geopolitical, and social context.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":263.0,"score_ratio":1.7} {"post_id":"m0sjdm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Voting for someone with authoritarian tendencies, even if you agree with their politics, is never a good idea. Simple reason being is it opens the gates for future politicians with authoritarian tendencies whose politics you do not agree with, and when the institutional guardrails of democracy and civil rights are eroded, there is little standing in the way to protect you when that happens. Fascism and authoritarianism of any kind is never good because it always has the potential to turn bad fast with little checks and balances. Those in Congress who voted to overturn the election results on January 6th, after the Capitol had been attacked by a mob incited by the lie that the election was stolen, voted to install Trump as America\u2019s first dictator. It was a shameful chapter of American history, antithetical to the values the nation was founded on. Anyone who does not respect the pillars of democracy - mutual toleration, respecting the will of the people, and ensuring free and fair elections, is fundamentally unworthy to hold any elected office in American government. Respecting the outcome of elections and not working to poison democracy is the most basic, most reasonable line to draw, and supersedes any policy or political preference.","c_root_id_A":"gq9nywt","c_root_id_B":"gq9rh41","created_at_utc_A":1615245417,"created_at_utc_B":1615247266,"score_A":8,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Would you consider second amendment rights being taken away, one of the most authoritarian things that can be done?","human_ref_B":"did they vote to install trump as a dictator, or did they vote in line with the expectation their voting base has with them, that the election was stolen and that trump was the true elected president this is another example of liberal histrionics about this issue yes, trump was being a child who couldn't accept he lost the election. yes, that probably led to the riot. but if you're pretending like you're defending democracy from a dangerous demagogic fascist, and not just participating in a pointless partisan political game, i'm sorry, but you're kidding yourself. this is an era of fake politics, where simultaneously nothing we say really matters, while at the same time everyone is hyper partisan and overdramatic to get people to vote and care about a political situation where nothing fundamentally changes. its ridiculous and i'm tired of tolerating it. the same goes for the right, btw; you're being conned into participating in a system where the actual decisions are made far away from these endless dumb liberal vs conservative debates. its nauseating. if you really want to make changes, become a lobbyist, or become a finance economist and get on the federal reserve or the IMF board","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1849.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m0sjdm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Voting for someone with authoritarian tendencies, even if you agree with their politics, is never a good idea. Simple reason being is it opens the gates for future politicians with authoritarian tendencies whose politics you do not agree with, and when the institutional guardrails of democracy and civil rights are eroded, there is little standing in the way to protect you when that happens. Fascism and authoritarianism of any kind is never good because it always has the potential to turn bad fast with little checks and balances. Those in Congress who voted to overturn the election results on January 6th, after the Capitol had been attacked by a mob incited by the lie that the election was stolen, voted to install Trump as America\u2019s first dictator. It was a shameful chapter of American history, antithetical to the values the nation was founded on. Anyone who does not respect the pillars of democracy - mutual toleration, respecting the will of the people, and ensuring free and fair elections, is fundamentally unworthy to hold any elected office in American government. Respecting the outcome of elections and not working to poison democracy is the most basic, most reasonable line to draw, and supersedes any policy or political preference.","c_root_id_A":"gq9nywt","c_root_id_B":"gq9vra9","created_at_utc_A":1615245417,"created_at_utc_B":1615249544,"score_A":8,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Would you consider second amendment rights being taken away, one of the most authoritarian things that can be done?","human_ref_B":">Those in Congress who voted to overturn the election results on January 6th, after the Capitol had been attacked by a mob incited by the lie that the election was stolen, voted to install Trump as America\u2019s first dictator I'm sorry, but this is just ahistorical drivel. The exact powers that Trump was asking Congress to exercise are not only constitutionally appointed to Congress in explicit terms, they've also been used before in an American election. 1876, if you were wondering. Furthermore in 1800, Thomas Jefferson used the office of the vice presidency in exactly the way that Trump asked pence to do. He unilaterally certified votes from Georgia that did not meet the requirements to be certified. Had he not done so, the election would have gone to the house, where his side was at a disadvantage. Everything Trump did was both legal and fully constitutional as well as rooted in historical precedent. You're barking up the wrong tree. >not working to poison democracy well Trump would argue that the people who committed election fraud are the people poisoning democracy. And the basic truth of the matter is that no sufficient investigation actually occurred in the states that mattered. Furthermore, the Supreme Court refusing to hear Texas's case leaves on this supremely important legal question open to interpretation and abuse in future elections. It's actually bad that they didn't take it up and rule on the merits of his case.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4127.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"m0sjdm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Voting for someone with authoritarian tendencies, even if you agree with their politics, is never a good idea. Simple reason being is it opens the gates for future politicians with authoritarian tendencies whose politics you do not agree with, and when the institutional guardrails of democracy and civil rights are eroded, there is little standing in the way to protect you when that happens. Fascism and authoritarianism of any kind is never good because it always has the potential to turn bad fast with little checks and balances. Those in Congress who voted to overturn the election results on January 6th, after the Capitol had been attacked by a mob incited by the lie that the election was stolen, voted to install Trump as America\u2019s first dictator. It was a shameful chapter of American history, antithetical to the values the nation was founded on. Anyone who does not respect the pillars of democracy - mutual toleration, respecting the will of the people, and ensuring free and fair elections, is fundamentally unworthy to hold any elected office in American government. Respecting the outcome of elections and not working to poison democracy is the most basic, most reasonable line to draw, and supersedes any policy or political preference.","c_root_id_A":"gqc2huh","c_root_id_B":"gqam1n8","created_at_utc_A":1615302825,"created_at_utc_B":1615264265,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What if the only viable choices are candidates with \u201cauthorization tendencies?\u201d Then isn\u2019t it best to choose the one without the support of the national media and the federal bureaucracy? The Rs supported the lie that the election was stolen in 2020. Democrats supported the lie it was stolen in 2016 for the previous 4 yrs. America is dominated by two separate pluralities who see themselves walking in the opposite direction on the street with zero recognition.","human_ref_B":"I just want to point out that totalitarianism is different than authoritarianism. I do think that government control is needed for all sorts of things. Market regulations, environmental protections etc.. Libertarianism which could be considered the opposite of authoritarianism just leads to oligarchy and corporatism so... authoritarianism with extra steps... with","labels":1,"seconds_difference":38560.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"m0sjdm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"CMV: Voting for someone with authoritarian tendencies, even if you agree with their politics, is never a good idea. Simple reason being is it opens the gates for future politicians with authoritarian tendencies whose politics you do not agree with, and when the institutional guardrails of democracy and civil rights are eroded, there is little standing in the way to protect you when that happens. Fascism and authoritarianism of any kind is never good because it always has the potential to turn bad fast with little checks and balances. Those in Congress who voted to overturn the election results on January 6th, after the Capitol had been attacked by a mob incited by the lie that the election was stolen, voted to install Trump as America\u2019s first dictator. It was a shameful chapter of American history, antithetical to the values the nation was founded on. Anyone who does not respect the pillars of democracy - mutual toleration, respecting the will of the people, and ensuring free and fair elections, is fundamentally unworthy to hold any elected office in American government. Respecting the outcome of elections and not working to poison democracy is the most basic, most reasonable line to draw, and supersedes any policy or political preference.","c_root_id_A":"gqc2huh","c_root_id_B":"gqa8rgt","created_at_utc_A":1615302825,"created_at_utc_B":1615256672,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What if the only viable choices are candidates with \u201cauthorization tendencies?\u201d Then isn\u2019t it best to choose the one without the support of the national media and the federal bureaucracy? The Rs supported the lie that the election was stolen in 2020. Democrats supported the lie it was stolen in 2016 for the previous 4 yrs. America is dominated by two separate pluralities who see themselves walking in the opposite direction on the street with zero recognition.","human_ref_B":"In a 2 party system, realistically you vote for the candidate you like less. Imagine: Candidate A) I will deport you and your family Candidate B) Authoritarian Would you say you should still vote for A? And then you start taking steps back. How much do you care about issue A B C vs someone who's kind of authoritarian? How much damage could one person really do? That's what the elections basically come down to. Authoritarianism isn't something that happens over night ,and it's a scale. It's not binary. There can be other more pressing issues that take a higher priority, because if those other issues aren't addressed, you aren't worried about long term.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":46153.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8biqdl","c_root_id_B":"f8baykg","created_at_utc_A":1574437832,"created_at_utc_B":1574432326,"score_A":546,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"I just can't trust people who outright dislike animals. I can get being indifferent, or just not wanting pets. The thing is, I've met a lot of people who said they didn't like animals, and used it as an excuse to abuse animals. Not having any empathy for animals can also be a sign of greater problems. It can be a sign that they gislike all things that they consider \"lesser\" be it an animal or a woman (or a man, for that matter) or different races or economic classes or sexual orientations or ethnicities- you get the picture. Obviously a lot of people just don't like animals or being around them and, like you, wish this is no harm. That itself isn't unethical. But I am always reminded of the serial killer triad when I meet someone who doesn't like animals at all. Animal abuse, bedwetting, and pyromania. It doesn't help that most of the people I've met who dislike animals have been psychiatric patients. Granted, I was a patient too. The last time I was inpatient there was a girl who followed me around for days going on and on about how she liked to torture and mutilate cats- and then would accuse me of harassing her when I would tell me to stop and try to bring it to the attention of the staff. Who of course just told me to stop bringing it up, as if I was the one who was starting it. Anyway, that drama aside. It is not necessarily unethical on it's own but is frequently a sign of larger unethical beliefs and behaviors.","human_ref_B":"> People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This is very strange in this context because you don't make jokes about the holocaust or child molestation because you dislike children (and if you are then that's generally not accepted) but specifically because these are horrific things, for that matter I *have* seen jokes about murdering puppies, but, just as with \"good\" holocaust and child molestation jokes the joke is more of a \"look how terrible I'm being\" rather than \"suffering is fun\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5506.0,"score_ratio":6.5} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8b91dk","c_root_id_B":"f8biqdl","created_at_utc_A":1574430789,"created_at_utc_B":1574437832,"score_A":52,"score_B":546,"human_ref_A":"It isn't wrong, but it is pretty uncommon. One of our deepest instincts is to pack bond, and we do it with all kinds of things. Our ability to just kind of decide that a thing in our lives is in the set of \\[us\\] is one of the things that made us so evolutionarily able, and also is a thing that gives a lot of people meaning in their lives. ​ Like, I kinda feel like you're asking the wrong question here, or an unanswerable question. It's like asking if it's wrong to not be nostalgic.","human_ref_B":"I just can't trust people who outright dislike animals. I can get being indifferent, or just not wanting pets. The thing is, I've met a lot of people who said they didn't like animals, and used it as an excuse to abuse animals. Not having any empathy for animals can also be a sign of greater problems. It can be a sign that they gislike all things that they consider \"lesser\" be it an animal or a woman (or a man, for that matter) or different races or economic classes or sexual orientations or ethnicities- you get the picture. Obviously a lot of people just don't like animals or being around them and, like you, wish this is no harm. That itself isn't unethical. But I am always reminded of the serial killer triad when I meet someone who doesn't like animals at all. Animal abuse, bedwetting, and pyromania. It doesn't help that most of the people I've met who dislike animals have been psychiatric patients. Granted, I was a patient too. The last time I was inpatient there was a girl who followed me around for days going on and on about how she liked to torture and mutilate cats- and then would accuse me of harassing her when I would tell me to stop and try to bring it to the attention of the staff. Who of course just told me to stop bringing it up, as if I was the one who was starting it. Anyway, that drama aside. It is not necessarily unethical on it's own but is frequently a sign of larger unethical beliefs and behaviors.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7043.0,"score_ratio":10.5} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8bbr4u","c_root_id_B":"f8biqdl","created_at_utc_A":1574432928,"created_at_utc_B":1574437832,"score_A":28,"score_B":546,"human_ref_A":"I agree there\u2019s nothing wrong with not liking animals. I don\u2019t like animals and will never be a pet owner but I\u2019d never harm one either. Those two things are completely different. To me having a pet is like having a toddler that never grows up. \ud83d\ude01 I can be around animals, i get why people like them. Just not for me. I have no desire to ride a horse, own a pet or go to the zoo Although I will watch the odd cat video. Haha. Nothing wrong with that position so long as you don\u2019t have any bad intent or actions towards animals. Indifference over dislike or hate.","human_ref_B":"I just can't trust people who outright dislike animals. I can get being indifferent, or just not wanting pets. The thing is, I've met a lot of people who said they didn't like animals, and used it as an excuse to abuse animals. Not having any empathy for animals can also be a sign of greater problems. It can be a sign that they gislike all things that they consider \"lesser\" be it an animal or a woman (or a man, for that matter) or different races or economic classes or sexual orientations or ethnicities- you get the picture. Obviously a lot of people just don't like animals or being around them and, like you, wish this is no harm. That itself isn't unethical. But I am always reminded of the serial killer triad when I meet someone who doesn't like animals at all. Animal abuse, bedwetting, and pyromania. It doesn't help that most of the people I've met who dislike animals have been psychiatric patients. Granted, I was a patient too. The last time I was inpatient there was a girl who followed me around for days going on and on about how she liked to torture and mutilate cats- and then would accuse me of harassing her when I would tell me to stop and try to bring it to the attention of the staff. Who of course just told me to stop bringing it up, as if I was the one who was starting it. Anyway, that drama aside. It is not necessarily unethical on it's own but is frequently a sign of larger unethical beliefs and behaviors.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4904.0,"score_ratio":19.5} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8bforh","c_root_id_B":"f8biqdl","created_at_utc_A":1574435768,"created_at_utc_B":1574437832,"score_A":16,"score_B":546,"human_ref_A":"I understand your point of view, but I think you kinda missed the mark when bringing up the jokes. Something more relevant might be people who say they would try to save an animal before a person from a burning house. It's anecdotal, but I have seen people make that comment on Reddit in the past. (fucking insane, I know)","human_ref_B":"I just can't trust people who outright dislike animals. I can get being indifferent, or just not wanting pets. The thing is, I've met a lot of people who said they didn't like animals, and used it as an excuse to abuse animals. Not having any empathy for animals can also be a sign of greater problems. It can be a sign that they gislike all things that they consider \"lesser\" be it an animal or a woman (or a man, for that matter) or different races or economic classes or sexual orientations or ethnicities- you get the picture. Obviously a lot of people just don't like animals or being around them and, like you, wish this is no harm. That itself isn't unethical. But I am always reminded of the serial killer triad when I meet someone who doesn't like animals at all. Animal abuse, bedwetting, and pyromania. It doesn't help that most of the people I've met who dislike animals have been psychiatric patients. Granted, I was a patient too. The last time I was inpatient there was a girl who followed me around for days going on and on about how she liked to torture and mutilate cats- and then would accuse me of harassing her when I would tell me to stop and try to bring it to the attention of the staff. Who of course just told me to stop bringing it up, as if I was the one who was starting it. Anyway, that drama aside. It is not necessarily unethical on it's own but is frequently a sign of larger unethical beliefs and behaviors.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2064.0,"score_ratio":34.125} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8biqdl","c_root_id_B":"f8bg2xi","created_at_utc_A":1574437832,"created_at_utc_B":1574436039,"score_A":546,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I just can't trust people who outright dislike animals. I can get being indifferent, or just not wanting pets. The thing is, I've met a lot of people who said they didn't like animals, and used it as an excuse to abuse animals. Not having any empathy for animals can also be a sign of greater problems. It can be a sign that they gislike all things that they consider \"lesser\" be it an animal or a woman (or a man, for that matter) or different races or economic classes or sexual orientations or ethnicities- you get the picture. Obviously a lot of people just don't like animals or being around them and, like you, wish this is no harm. That itself isn't unethical. But I am always reminded of the serial killer triad when I meet someone who doesn't like animals at all. Animal abuse, bedwetting, and pyromania. It doesn't help that most of the people I've met who dislike animals have been psychiatric patients. Granted, I was a patient too. The last time I was inpatient there was a girl who followed me around for days going on and on about how she liked to torture and mutilate cats- and then would accuse me of harassing her when I would tell me to stop and try to bring it to the attention of the staff. Who of course just told me to stop bringing it up, as if I was the one who was starting it. Anyway, that drama aside. It is not necessarily unethical on it's own but is frequently a sign of larger unethical beliefs and behaviors.","human_ref_B":"- Im not sure I am going to change your mind but I am very interested in trying to understand your point. Since I was a kid, I really like animals, I felt empathy to animal in distress. For me, I dont understand those who are indifferent to animals. On the one hand, you would have a mental disorder if you torture and kill animals but that is not what you are saying, just indifferent to them and dont seek to harm them. The reason Im interested in your view is that I have a nephew and niece who just got a new dog. My niece is a clear animal lover but my nephew is mean to the dog. He is always taunting him, in his face and wont leave him alone. He has not hurt the dog or tried to kill the dog, I just think he doesnt feel any empathy toward the dog. Just curious, how were you around animals as a child","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1793.0,"score_ratio":45.5} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8b94fc","c_root_id_B":"f8biqdl","created_at_utc_A":1574430859,"created_at_utc_B":1574437832,"score_A":9,"score_B":546,"human_ref_A":"You have no empathy for a living creature if they are not human. I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure there is a name for this.","human_ref_B":"I just can't trust people who outright dislike animals. I can get being indifferent, or just not wanting pets. The thing is, I've met a lot of people who said they didn't like animals, and used it as an excuse to abuse animals. Not having any empathy for animals can also be a sign of greater problems. It can be a sign that they gislike all things that they consider \"lesser\" be it an animal or a woman (or a man, for that matter) or different races or economic classes or sexual orientations or ethnicities- you get the picture. Obviously a lot of people just don't like animals or being around them and, like you, wish this is no harm. That itself isn't unethical. But I am always reminded of the serial killer triad when I meet someone who doesn't like animals at all. Animal abuse, bedwetting, and pyromania. It doesn't help that most of the people I've met who dislike animals have been psychiatric patients. Granted, I was a patient too. The last time I was inpatient there was a girl who followed me around for days going on and on about how she liked to torture and mutilate cats- and then would accuse me of harassing her when I would tell me to stop and try to bring it to the attention of the staff. Who of course just told me to stop bringing it up, as if I was the one who was starting it. Anyway, that drama aside. It is not necessarily unethical on it's own but is frequently a sign of larger unethical beliefs and behaviors.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6973.0,"score_ratio":60.6666666667} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8b91dk","c_root_id_B":"f8baykg","created_at_utc_A":1574430789,"created_at_utc_B":1574432326,"score_A":52,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"It isn't wrong, but it is pretty uncommon. One of our deepest instincts is to pack bond, and we do it with all kinds of things. Our ability to just kind of decide that a thing in our lives is in the set of \\[us\\] is one of the things that made us so evolutionarily able, and also is a thing that gives a lot of people meaning in their lives. ​ Like, I kinda feel like you're asking the wrong question here, or an unanswerable question. It's like asking if it's wrong to not be nostalgic.","human_ref_B":"> People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This is very strange in this context because you don't make jokes about the holocaust or child molestation because you dislike children (and if you are then that's generally not accepted) but specifically because these are horrific things, for that matter I *have* seen jokes about murdering puppies, but, just as with \"good\" holocaust and child molestation jokes the joke is more of a \"look how terrible I'm being\" rather than \"suffering is fun\".","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1537.0,"score_ratio":1.6153846154} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8b94fc","c_root_id_B":"f8baykg","created_at_utc_A":1574430859,"created_at_utc_B":1574432326,"score_A":9,"score_B":84,"human_ref_A":"You have no empathy for a living creature if they are not human. I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure there is a name for this.","human_ref_B":"> People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This is very strange in this context because you don't make jokes about the holocaust or child molestation because you dislike children (and if you are then that's generally not accepted) but specifically because these are horrific things, for that matter I *have* seen jokes about murdering puppies, but, just as with \"good\" holocaust and child molestation jokes the joke is more of a \"look how terrible I'm being\" rather than \"suffering is fun\".","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1467.0,"score_ratio":9.3333333333} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8bbr4u","c_root_id_B":"f8b94fc","created_at_utc_A":1574432928,"created_at_utc_B":1574430859,"score_A":28,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I agree there\u2019s nothing wrong with not liking animals. I don\u2019t like animals and will never be a pet owner but I\u2019d never harm one either. Those two things are completely different. To me having a pet is like having a toddler that never grows up. \ud83d\ude01 I can be around animals, i get why people like them. Just not for me. I have no desire to ride a horse, own a pet or go to the zoo Although I will watch the odd cat video. Haha. Nothing wrong with that position so long as you don\u2019t have any bad intent or actions towards animals. Indifference over dislike or hate.","human_ref_B":"You have no empathy for a living creature if they are not human. I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure there is a name for this.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2069.0,"score_ratio":3.1111111111} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8b94fc","c_root_id_B":"f8bforh","created_at_utc_A":1574430859,"created_at_utc_B":1574435768,"score_A":9,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"You have no empathy for a living creature if they are not human. I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure there is a name for this.","human_ref_B":"I understand your point of view, but I think you kinda missed the mark when bringing up the jokes. Something more relevant might be people who say they would try to save an animal before a person from a burning house. It's anecdotal, but I have seen people make that comment on Reddit in the past. (fucking insane, I know)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4909.0,"score_ratio":1.7777777778} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8bjhus","c_root_id_B":"f8bg2xi","created_at_utc_A":1574438337,"created_at_utc_B":1574436039,"score_A":14,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Do you want to live in a world where people can get hundreds of upvotes for stomping a cat to death? I\u2019m lost on what exactly you think the problem is here. It\u2019s not ethically wrong to not like animals but it\u2019s a bit strange to want to be able to joke about killing them. If you go out in public and start making jokes about child molestation and jokes about killing animals, you\u2019d probably get fairly similar reactions to both.","human_ref_B":"- Im not sure I am going to change your mind but I am very interested in trying to understand your point. Since I was a kid, I really like animals, I felt empathy to animal in distress. For me, I dont understand those who are indifferent to animals. On the one hand, you would have a mental disorder if you torture and kill animals but that is not what you are saying, just indifferent to them and dont seek to harm them. The reason Im interested in your view is that I have a nephew and niece who just got a new dog. My niece is a clear animal lover but my nephew is mean to the dog. He is always taunting him, in his face and wont leave him alone. He has not hurt the dog or tried to kill the dog, I just think he doesnt feel any empathy toward the dog. Just curious, how were you around animals as a child","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2298.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8b94fc","c_root_id_B":"f8bjhus","created_at_utc_A":1574430859,"created_at_utc_B":1574438337,"score_A":9,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"You have no empathy for a living creature if they are not human. I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure there is a name for this.","human_ref_B":"Do you want to live in a world where people can get hundreds of upvotes for stomping a cat to death? I\u2019m lost on what exactly you think the problem is here. It\u2019s not ethically wrong to not like animals but it\u2019s a bit strange to want to be able to joke about killing them. If you go out in public and start making jokes about child molestation and jokes about killing animals, you\u2019d probably get fairly similar reactions to both.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7478.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8bg2xi","c_root_id_B":"f8b94fc","created_at_utc_A":1574436039,"created_at_utc_B":1574430859,"score_A":12,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"- Im not sure I am going to change your mind but I am very interested in trying to understand your point. Since I was a kid, I really like animals, I felt empathy to animal in distress. For me, I dont understand those who are indifferent to animals. On the one hand, you would have a mental disorder if you torture and kill animals but that is not what you are saying, just indifferent to them and dont seek to harm them. The reason Im interested in your view is that I have a nephew and niece who just got a new dog. My niece is a clear animal lover but my nephew is mean to the dog. He is always taunting him, in his face and wont leave him alone. He has not hurt the dog or tried to kill the dog, I just think he doesnt feel any empathy toward the dog. Just curious, how were you around animals as a child","human_ref_B":"You have no empathy for a living creature if they are not human. I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure there is a name for this.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5180.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"dzzdmx","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals. The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed \"cute\" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted. This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals. Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?","c_root_id_A":"f8b94fc","c_root_id_B":"f8bu7f9","created_at_utc_A":1574430859,"created_at_utc_B":1574445425,"score_A":9,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"You have no empathy for a living creature if they are not human. I'm not a psychologist but I'm sure there is a name for this.","human_ref_B":"Tldr: I do agree that disliking animals is not ethically wrong, because I do not think ethics applies to your opinions, only the actions that result from them. People find humor in painful situations as a coping mechanism and on average may not see animal victimization as often as human victimization. To start with, I want to define a term. Your ethics are moral principles that govern your behavior or the conducting of an activity. I don\u2019t think liking or disliking something is a matter of ethics. I think it\u2019s your actions around that. As you indicated, you would feel sad for your roommate if something happened to the dog, and you are happy to feed it if you need to, even though you would never get a dog yourself, nor are you generally fond of animals. You aren\u2019t disparaging of the dog. You aren\u2019t telling your roommate to get rid of it. You aren\u2019t beating it with a stick or setting it on fire. You are treating the dog ethically, likely because you have a moral compass that dictates you shouldn\u2019t cause harm to it. For comparison, to flip the narrative, at this point in like I feel very similar about children- babies in particular. I get that you are attached to your oozy loud delicate potato, but I have no interest in getting closer. That being said, if I was thrust into a situation where my help was needed to keep it happy and alive, I wouldn\u2019t hesitate to help. If it died, I would feel sad for my friend and attend the funeral, but I wouldn\u2019t really be emotionally attached, though I do realize that sounds cold. I do not believe that I am ethically in the wrong for feeling this way about children, as I\u2019m not going out of my way to cause harm, or dictating what other people should do, I\u2019m just not interested in acquiring any of my own. As an additional point, in regards to the humor situation, people use humor to cope with horrible realities. People know people who were impacted by the holocaust. People know people who were a victim of child molestation. It is a horrible reality that can hit close to home for people, and the way to cope with it is through humor. People also laugh at experiences they relate to. For example, if I walked into a wall while texting, that\u2019s hilarious. I would laugh at my own clumsiness, and I expect the people around me would laugh as well. It\u2019s relatable and while painful in the moment, doesn\u2019t do any long term damage. The best phrase I\u2019m coming up with is empathy laughing. I don\u2019t wish harm or wish that more people would get nailed on the bike bar, but it\u2019s happened, it\u2019s on film, and I will laugh out of empathy. Finally, I wonder if people do not find animal abuse funny or joke worthy because it has not impacted them in the same way that other tragedies have. If my cat was stolen and burned to death, unless it was nailed to my door by a psycho, the odds are pretty good that I would never know what happened to her. I wonder if the few people that are in that environment that see animal abuse on a regular basis do find humor where they can in similar situation, like ER workers typically more morbid senses of humor than your average person.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14566.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111} {"post_id":"a35279","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: If a company can afford to pay it's full time employees a living wage, they should have to reimburse the government for any government assistance received by any of it's employees. I am of the radical opinion that a person who works full time should make enough money to support their family, on one single full time income. While I fully acknowledge that this is a radical dream, I think a fair compromise to take as a reasonably achievable goal would be that no one working full time qualifies for government assistance. Any full time worker who is on any form of government assistance is not on welfare, their corporation is. Many of these companies are capable of paying their employees a living wage and yet chose not to. I recently saw numbers indicating that one third of the employees at Amazon qualified for food stamps, and yet the CEO of Amazon compensates himself to the tune of $105 Million per day in total compensation. Cases like these are clear cut examples of the government subsidizing the employer's expenses for the benefit of the highly compensated workers\/shareholders.","c_root_id_A":"eb3ewyf","c_root_id_B":"eb3fdsv","created_at_utc_A":1543958993,"created_at_utc_B":1543959339,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> I am of the radical opinion that a person who works full time should make enough money to support their family, on one single full time income. Why? You realize that would just mean all jobs that are not productive enough to meet that arbitrary standard would simply disappear? So essentially anyone without an attractive university education would be permanently unemployed. > Many of these companies are capable of paying their employees a living wage and yet chose not to. I recently saw numbers indicating that one third of the employees at Amazon qualified for food stamps, and yet the CEO of Amazon compensates himself to the tune of $105 Million per day in total compensation. He doesn't compensate himself, that's not how it works.","human_ref_B":"Won't this be a substantial incentive for companies to hire employees that don't receive welfare and\/or other benefits? Seems like a perverse policy to ensure that someone with a lot of children would be much less likely to get a job... Don't you think?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":346.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"a35279","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: If a company can afford to pay it's full time employees a living wage, they should have to reimburse the government for any government assistance received by any of it's employees. I am of the radical opinion that a person who works full time should make enough money to support their family, on one single full time income. While I fully acknowledge that this is a radical dream, I think a fair compromise to take as a reasonably achievable goal would be that no one working full time qualifies for government assistance. Any full time worker who is on any form of government assistance is not on welfare, their corporation is. Many of these companies are capable of paying their employees a living wage and yet chose not to. I recently saw numbers indicating that one third of the employees at Amazon qualified for food stamps, and yet the CEO of Amazon compensates himself to the tune of $105 Million per day in total compensation. Cases like these are clear cut examples of the government subsidizing the employer's expenses for the benefit of the highly compensated workers\/shareholders.","c_root_id_A":"eb3g3pa","c_root_id_B":"eb3ewyf","created_at_utc_A":1543959869,"created_at_utc_B":1543958993,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Three practical issues jump out at me. This requires employers to know how much total income you make. An employees benefits would include their other income, so now Amazon or whatever has a right to know if you work for Uber or someone else with your free time. Or if you live with someone else who's salary counts in your household earnings. This also requires them to pay people not based on their productivity but based on their family status. Single employees would find it unfair to that someone with 8 kids get paid $20 an hour for the same job they do for $10. It would also give them a strong insensitive to fire parents, who would probably rather make $10 an hour than $0. This would kill probably part time workers. By setting a per month price floor not a per hour floor you discourage low income part time employement. While some people want to work full time but cannot, there are people who don't want a full time job. Or at least people with other obligations preventing them from working full time. Your policy will make these people worse off.","human_ref_B":"> I am of the radical opinion that a person who works full time should make enough money to support their family, on one single full time income. Why? You realize that would just mean all jobs that are not productive enough to meet that arbitrary standard would simply disappear? So essentially anyone without an attractive university education would be permanently unemployed. > Many of these companies are capable of paying their employees a living wage and yet chose not to. I recently saw numbers indicating that one third of the employees at Amazon qualified for food stamps, and yet the CEO of Amazon compensates himself to the tune of $105 Million per day in total compensation. He doesn't compensate himself, that's not how it works.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":876.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"a35279","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.64,"history":"CMV: If a company can afford to pay it's full time employees a living wage, they should have to reimburse the government for any government assistance received by any of it's employees. I am of the radical opinion that a person who works full time should make enough money to support their family, on one single full time income. While I fully acknowledge that this is a radical dream, I think a fair compromise to take as a reasonably achievable goal would be that no one working full time qualifies for government assistance. Any full time worker who is on any form of government assistance is not on welfare, their corporation is. Many of these companies are capable of paying their employees a living wage and yet chose not to. I recently saw numbers indicating that one third of the employees at Amazon qualified for food stamps, and yet the CEO of Amazon compensates himself to the tune of $105 Million per day in total compensation. Cases like these are clear cut examples of the government subsidizing the employer's expenses for the benefit of the highly compensated workers\/shareholders.","c_root_id_A":"eb3fyoh","c_root_id_B":"eb3g3pa","created_at_utc_A":1543959767,"created_at_utc_B":1543959869,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Just a point of clarification: Jeff Bezos does not draw a salary of 38 billion dollars a year. His salary from Amazon is apparently only like 81k a year. Most of his wealth comes from ownership in huge enterprises. Even still, he makes nowhere near 105 million dollars a day.","human_ref_B":"Three practical issues jump out at me. This requires employers to know how much total income you make. An employees benefits would include their other income, so now Amazon or whatever has a right to know if you work for Uber or someone else with your free time. Or if you live with someone else who's salary counts in your household earnings. This also requires them to pay people not based on their productivity but based on their family status. Single employees would find it unfair to that someone with 8 kids get paid $20 an hour for the same job they do for $10. It would also give them a strong insensitive to fire parents, who would probably rather make $10 an hour than $0. This would kill probably part time workers. By setting a per month price floor not a per hour floor you discourage low income part time employement. While some people want to work full time but cannot, there are people who don't want a full time job. Or at least people with other obligations preventing them from working full time. Your policy will make these people worse off.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":102.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"28zgxm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: I believe that it should be illegal for any public or private institutions to ask for anyone's race Many employers ask for race, gender, and occasionally age on applications of employment. Though there is a \"decline to answer\" option and the data is suppose to be used for statistical purposes only, I believe that race is personal information and is not something that is fair game for anyone to ask anybody. This would include public institutions such as federal employees, military, public schools (both employees and students), race of someone receiving any form of welfare benefits or someone currently paying child support and any higher education institutions. I believe asking for race is something left over from the affirmative action era. One's race should be personal information and in the same category as your confidential medical history. No one has the right to ask you your medical history for any reason, the same should go for race. I do not agree with affirmative action. People are not being accepted into college and in some cases being denied employment simply because they are a certain race that is currently to \"over-saturated\" in whatever institution they are applying to. The legal action that should take place is a sweeping federal law banning anyone's ability to ask for the race of someone, even if only generated for statistical purposes. The reason age I believe is a valid question is because often times age is directly linked to one's physical ability to perform. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cifzro8","c_root_id_B":"cig0q3y","created_at_utc_A":1403636460,"created_at_utc_B":1403638213,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The affirmative action era. Was that after the workplace racism era?","human_ref_B":"Its very unfortunate that people can't be trusted to do the right thing, but even in 2014, that is the reality of the world we live in. Luckily, we are not in a post-affirmative action era. Affirmative action is alive and well and will continue to be as long as discrepancies along the lines of race and sex continue. We know what will happen if certain federal-level policies protecting vulnerable minorities from discrimination such as affirmative action were to disappear, because the bulk of the Voter's Rights Act of 1965 was recently overturned by the Supreme Court. The Voter's Rights Act was a major victory in the Civil Rights movement that sought to usurp the authority of states to make certain voting policies because those states couldn't handle the responsibility to make voting policies without disenfranchising their black residents. States like Mississippi used their pre-1965 ability to shape voter regulations to specifically target blacks in such a way to discourage or make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote. This was a major part of Jim Crow and segregation, and the Supreme Court repealing the protections that protected blacks from these racist voter policies in effect, reinstated parts of Jim Crow in places like Mississippi, but in a different way. Under Jim Crow, southern states used poll taxes, literacy tests, lynching, and Klan-style intimidation tactics to make it difficult for blacks to vote. Now, the tactics are tailored around particular cultural and traditional ways blacks have developed to exercise and celebrate their right to vote. Many blacks, for example vote on Sundays. Because church was the only place blacks had (since they were categorically denied access to business, civic organizations, political institutions, and schools of higher education), and since prior to the Great Migration of blacks from the South to the Northern cities they lived in remote rural communities far from polling centers, blacks have developed a tradition of getting together after church and maybe a party to celebrate their hard-won rights, getting on buses and going to town to vote. Those who couldn't make it, would vote by absentee ballot. This tradition continues to this day, and rather than being seen as a patriotic celebration of what it means to be a US citizen, it is seen by racists as a way to disenfranchise people. In many states, including Northern ones, Sunday and absentee-ballot voting has been taken away in an effort to suppress voters and end a great American tradition. In many states, racists who enjoy intimidating and lying to black and latino voters are organizing themselves into a nationwide volunteer army who are trained to suppress voting in predominantly minority communities. And voter ID laws and voter birth-certificate laws, which are established for the specific purpose of eliminating minority voters from the rolls, are also being enacted with the re-establishment of Jim Crow voter suppression measures by the Supreme Court. And I should add that these blatantly racist policies, along with House Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts in an effort to minimize the value of the minority vote, are not just confined to Mississippi and Alabama but in Ohio and Illinois, as well as other places too. But its important to recognize that the original Jim Crow wasn't established until the early 20th Century. Between the end of the Civil War (or as I like to call it, The War of Southern Aggression) and the original Jim Crow, there was a period called \"Reconstruction\". During this period, federal employees and organizations were set up in the South to ensure that the rights of blacks were being upheld. There was a flowering of educated black leaders, politicians, judges, and although slavery continued in a new form called share-cropping, there was progress. It was only when the federal government pulled out of the South prematurely under the impression that \"hey the Civil War was over 40 years ago, therefore the problem is solved\" that the violent apartheid regime called Jim Crow was erected. And it is only now that the Voter's Rights Act of 1965 has been prematurely removed that we are seeing a reestablishment of institutionalized racism in the South and North. Blacks have 1\/10th the equity of whites. They are far more likely to live in poverty, to drop out of high school, to never go to college, to be imprisoned, and this isn't because they are genetically inferior or inherently stupid or lazy. It is because they are socialized into a situation that has never been fully overcome, mostly because privileged whites (myself included) have not sufficiently followed their lead in struggling for equality and dismantling our white supremacist culture. And now we're in a state of regression. So tell me, if Reconstruction ended under the impression that they were living in a \"post-race\" era and led to Jim Crow, and if the Voter's Rights Act ended under the impression that we're living in a \"post-race\" era and is now giving way to new ways to suppress black votes, then why should you believe that if black Affirmative Action (as opposed to white Affirmative Action) should disappear under the impression that we live in a \"post-race\" era and trust employers, college admissions boards, real estate professionals, and others who dish out opportunities and advancement to do the right thing? Do you know when we'll live in a \"post-race\" era? When the statistics on success, standard of living and well-being tell us we do. Until then, we need policies to help level the playing field, and challenge white supremacism and privilege.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1753.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"28zgxm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: I believe that it should be illegal for any public or private institutions to ask for anyone's race Many employers ask for race, gender, and occasionally age on applications of employment. Though there is a \"decline to answer\" option and the data is suppose to be used for statistical purposes only, I believe that race is personal information and is not something that is fair game for anyone to ask anybody. This would include public institutions such as federal employees, military, public schools (both employees and students), race of someone receiving any form of welfare benefits or someone currently paying child support and any higher education institutions. I believe asking for race is something left over from the affirmative action era. One's race should be personal information and in the same category as your confidential medical history. No one has the right to ask you your medical history for any reason, the same should go for race. I do not agree with affirmative action. People are not being accepted into college and in some cases being denied employment simply because they are a certain race that is currently to \"over-saturated\" in whatever institution they are applying to. The legal action that should take place is a sweeping federal law banning anyone's ability to ask for the race of someone, even if only generated for statistical purposes. The reason age I believe is a valid question is because often times age is directly linked to one's physical ability to perform. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cifzmma","c_root_id_B":"cifzro8","created_at_utc_A":1403636205,"created_at_utc_B":1403636460,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> The legal action that should take place is a sweeping federal law banning anyone's ability to ask for the race of someone, even if only generated for statistical purposes. You want to make more speech illegal? On what basis, since anyone is allowed to decline to answer?","human_ref_B":"The affirmative action era. Was that after the workplace racism era?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":255.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"28zgxm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: I believe that it should be illegal for any public or private institutions to ask for anyone's race Many employers ask for race, gender, and occasionally age on applications of employment. Though there is a \"decline to answer\" option and the data is suppose to be used for statistical purposes only, I believe that race is personal information and is not something that is fair game for anyone to ask anybody. This would include public institutions such as federal employees, military, public schools (both employees and students), race of someone receiving any form of welfare benefits or someone currently paying child support and any higher education institutions. I believe asking for race is something left over from the affirmative action era. One's race should be personal information and in the same category as your confidential medical history. No one has the right to ask you your medical history for any reason, the same should go for race. I do not agree with affirmative action. People are not being accepted into college and in some cases being denied employment simply because they are a certain race that is currently to \"over-saturated\" in whatever institution they are applying to. The legal action that should take place is a sweeping federal law banning anyone's ability to ask for the race of someone, even if only generated for statistical purposes. The reason age I believe is a valid question is because often times age is directly linked to one's physical ability to perform. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cifzmma","c_root_id_B":"cig0q3y","created_at_utc_A":1403636205,"created_at_utc_B":1403638213,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> The legal action that should take place is a sweeping federal law banning anyone's ability to ask for the race of someone, even if only generated for statistical purposes. You want to make more speech illegal? On what basis, since anyone is allowed to decline to answer?","human_ref_B":"Its very unfortunate that people can't be trusted to do the right thing, but even in 2014, that is the reality of the world we live in. Luckily, we are not in a post-affirmative action era. Affirmative action is alive and well and will continue to be as long as discrepancies along the lines of race and sex continue. We know what will happen if certain federal-level policies protecting vulnerable minorities from discrimination such as affirmative action were to disappear, because the bulk of the Voter's Rights Act of 1965 was recently overturned by the Supreme Court. The Voter's Rights Act was a major victory in the Civil Rights movement that sought to usurp the authority of states to make certain voting policies because those states couldn't handle the responsibility to make voting policies without disenfranchising their black residents. States like Mississippi used their pre-1965 ability to shape voter regulations to specifically target blacks in such a way to discourage or make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote. This was a major part of Jim Crow and segregation, and the Supreme Court repealing the protections that protected blacks from these racist voter policies in effect, reinstated parts of Jim Crow in places like Mississippi, but in a different way. Under Jim Crow, southern states used poll taxes, literacy tests, lynching, and Klan-style intimidation tactics to make it difficult for blacks to vote. Now, the tactics are tailored around particular cultural and traditional ways blacks have developed to exercise and celebrate their right to vote. Many blacks, for example vote on Sundays. Because church was the only place blacks had (since they were categorically denied access to business, civic organizations, political institutions, and schools of higher education), and since prior to the Great Migration of blacks from the South to the Northern cities they lived in remote rural communities far from polling centers, blacks have developed a tradition of getting together after church and maybe a party to celebrate their hard-won rights, getting on buses and going to town to vote. Those who couldn't make it, would vote by absentee ballot. This tradition continues to this day, and rather than being seen as a patriotic celebration of what it means to be a US citizen, it is seen by racists as a way to disenfranchise people. In many states, including Northern ones, Sunday and absentee-ballot voting has been taken away in an effort to suppress voters and end a great American tradition. In many states, racists who enjoy intimidating and lying to black and latino voters are organizing themselves into a nationwide volunteer army who are trained to suppress voting in predominantly minority communities. And voter ID laws and voter birth-certificate laws, which are established for the specific purpose of eliminating minority voters from the rolls, are also being enacted with the re-establishment of Jim Crow voter suppression measures by the Supreme Court. And I should add that these blatantly racist policies, along with House Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts in an effort to minimize the value of the minority vote, are not just confined to Mississippi and Alabama but in Ohio and Illinois, as well as other places too. But its important to recognize that the original Jim Crow wasn't established until the early 20th Century. Between the end of the Civil War (or as I like to call it, The War of Southern Aggression) and the original Jim Crow, there was a period called \"Reconstruction\". During this period, federal employees and organizations were set up in the South to ensure that the rights of blacks were being upheld. There was a flowering of educated black leaders, politicians, judges, and although slavery continued in a new form called share-cropping, there was progress. It was only when the federal government pulled out of the South prematurely under the impression that \"hey the Civil War was over 40 years ago, therefore the problem is solved\" that the violent apartheid regime called Jim Crow was erected. And it is only now that the Voter's Rights Act of 1965 has been prematurely removed that we are seeing a reestablishment of institutionalized racism in the South and North. Blacks have 1\/10th the equity of whites. They are far more likely to live in poverty, to drop out of high school, to never go to college, to be imprisoned, and this isn't because they are genetically inferior or inherently stupid or lazy. It is because they are socialized into a situation that has never been fully overcome, mostly because privileged whites (myself included) have not sufficiently followed their lead in struggling for equality and dismantling our white supremacist culture. And now we're in a state of regression. So tell me, if Reconstruction ended under the impression that they were living in a \"post-race\" era and led to Jim Crow, and if the Voter's Rights Act ended under the impression that we're living in a \"post-race\" era and is now giving way to new ways to suppress black votes, then why should you believe that if black Affirmative Action (as opposed to white Affirmative Action) should disappear under the impression that we live in a \"post-race\" era and trust employers, college admissions boards, real estate professionals, and others who dish out opportunities and advancement to do the right thing? Do you know when we'll live in a \"post-race\" era? When the statistics on success, standard of living and well-being tell us we do. Until then, we need policies to help level the playing field, and challenge white supremacism and privilege.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2008.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"28zgxm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: I believe that it should be illegal for any public or private institutions to ask for anyone's race Many employers ask for race, gender, and occasionally age on applications of employment. Though there is a \"decline to answer\" option and the data is suppose to be used for statistical purposes only, I believe that race is personal information and is not something that is fair game for anyone to ask anybody. This would include public institutions such as federal employees, military, public schools (both employees and students), race of someone receiving any form of welfare benefits or someone currently paying child support and any higher education institutions. I believe asking for race is something left over from the affirmative action era. One's race should be personal information and in the same category as your confidential medical history. No one has the right to ask you your medical history for any reason, the same should go for race. I do not agree with affirmative action. People are not being accepted into college and in some cases being denied employment simply because they are a certain race that is currently to \"over-saturated\" in whatever institution they are applying to. The legal action that should take place is a sweeping federal law banning anyone's ability to ask for the race of someone, even if only generated for statistical purposes. The reason age I believe is a valid question is because often times age is directly linked to one's physical ability to perform. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cig0q3y","c_root_id_B":"cig0c7q","created_at_utc_A":1403638213,"created_at_utc_B":1403637510,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Its very unfortunate that people can't be trusted to do the right thing, but even in 2014, that is the reality of the world we live in. Luckily, we are not in a post-affirmative action era. Affirmative action is alive and well and will continue to be as long as discrepancies along the lines of race and sex continue. We know what will happen if certain federal-level policies protecting vulnerable minorities from discrimination such as affirmative action were to disappear, because the bulk of the Voter's Rights Act of 1965 was recently overturned by the Supreme Court. The Voter's Rights Act was a major victory in the Civil Rights movement that sought to usurp the authority of states to make certain voting policies because those states couldn't handle the responsibility to make voting policies without disenfranchising their black residents. States like Mississippi used their pre-1965 ability to shape voter regulations to specifically target blacks in such a way to discourage or make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote. This was a major part of Jim Crow and segregation, and the Supreme Court repealing the protections that protected blacks from these racist voter policies in effect, reinstated parts of Jim Crow in places like Mississippi, but in a different way. Under Jim Crow, southern states used poll taxes, literacy tests, lynching, and Klan-style intimidation tactics to make it difficult for blacks to vote. Now, the tactics are tailored around particular cultural and traditional ways blacks have developed to exercise and celebrate their right to vote. Many blacks, for example vote on Sundays. Because church was the only place blacks had (since they were categorically denied access to business, civic organizations, political institutions, and schools of higher education), and since prior to the Great Migration of blacks from the South to the Northern cities they lived in remote rural communities far from polling centers, blacks have developed a tradition of getting together after church and maybe a party to celebrate their hard-won rights, getting on buses and going to town to vote. Those who couldn't make it, would vote by absentee ballot. This tradition continues to this day, and rather than being seen as a patriotic celebration of what it means to be a US citizen, it is seen by racists as a way to disenfranchise people. In many states, including Northern ones, Sunday and absentee-ballot voting has been taken away in an effort to suppress voters and end a great American tradition. In many states, racists who enjoy intimidating and lying to black and latino voters are organizing themselves into a nationwide volunteer army who are trained to suppress voting in predominantly minority communities. And voter ID laws and voter birth-certificate laws, which are established for the specific purpose of eliminating minority voters from the rolls, are also being enacted with the re-establishment of Jim Crow voter suppression measures by the Supreme Court. And I should add that these blatantly racist policies, along with House Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts in an effort to minimize the value of the minority vote, are not just confined to Mississippi and Alabama but in Ohio and Illinois, as well as other places too. But its important to recognize that the original Jim Crow wasn't established until the early 20th Century. Between the end of the Civil War (or as I like to call it, The War of Southern Aggression) and the original Jim Crow, there was a period called \"Reconstruction\". During this period, federal employees and organizations were set up in the South to ensure that the rights of blacks were being upheld. There was a flowering of educated black leaders, politicians, judges, and although slavery continued in a new form called share-cropping, there was progress. It was only when the federal government pulled out of the South prematurely under the impression that \"hey the Civil War was over 40 years ago, therefore the problem is solved\" that the violent apartheid regime called Jim Crow was erected. And it is only now that the Voter's Rights Act of 1965 has been prematurely removed that we are seeing a reestablishment of institutionalized racism in the South and North. Blacks have 1\/10th the equity of whites. They are far more likely to live in poverty, to drop out of high school, to never go to college, to be imprisoned, and this isn't because they are genetically inferior or inherently stupid or lazy. It is because they are socialized into a situation that has never been fully overcome, mostly because privileged whites (myself included) have not sufficiently followed their lead in struggling for equality and dismantling our white supremacist culture. And now we're in a state of regression. So tell me, if Reconstruction ended under the impression that they were living in a \"post-race\" era and led to Jim Crow, and if the Voter's Rights Act ended under the impression that we're living in a \"post-race\" era and is now giving way to new ways to suppress black votes, then why should you believe that if black Affirmative Action (as opposed to white Affirmative Action) should disappear under the impression that we live in a \"post-race\" era and trust employers, college admissions boards, real estate professionals, and others who dish out opportunities and advancement to do the right thing? Do you know when we'll live in a \"post-race\" era? When the statistics on success, standard of living and well-being tell us we do. Until then, we need policies to help level the playing field, and challenge white supremacism and privilege.","human_ref_B":"You say that \"No one has the right to ask you your medical history for any reason.\" Many jobs require physical exams in order to be qualified. You may not be disclosing your medical history directly on the application, but it will come into play during the hiring process.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":703.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"28zgxm","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"CMV: I believe that it should be illegal for any public or private institutions to ask for anyone's race Many employers ask for race, gender, and occasionally age on applications of employment. Though there is a \"decline to answer\" option and the data is suppose to be used for statistical purposes only, I believe that race is personal information and is not something that is fair game for anyone to ask anybody. This would include public institutions such as federal employees, military, public schools (both employees and students), race of someone receiving any form of welfare benefits or someone currently paying child support and any higher education institutions. I believe asking for race is something left over from the affirmative action era. One's race should be personal information and in the same category as your confidential medical history. No one has the right to ask you your medical history for any reason, the same should go for race. I do not agree with affirmative action. People are not being accepted into college and in some cases being denied employment simply because they are a certain race that is currently to \"over-saturated\" in whatever institution they are applying to. The legal action that should take place is a sweeping federal law banning anyone's ability to ask for the race of someone, even if only generated for statistical purposes. The reason age I believe is a valid question is because often times age is directly linked to one's physical ability to perform. CMV","c_root_id_A":"cig2ocj","c_root_id_B":"cig4rwj","created_at_utc_A":1403641807,"created_at_utc_B":1403645819,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">The legal action that should take place is a sweeping federal law banning anyone's ability to ask for the race of someone, even if only generated for statistical purposes. Discrimination hides in the dark corners, however. If we do not collect this information, we can never know if there is discrimination happening. Your view is tantamount to claiming that collecting this information is worse than allowing for discrimination to go undetected. Is this really your view? It seems to me that the problem you have is not with the collection of this data, but with how it is used. What if this data was collected *after* hiring? That way hiring decisions would not be based on race, but any discrimination could be detected?","human_ref_B":"Clarifying question: > This would include public institutions such as federal employees, military, public schools (both employees and students), race of someone receiving any form of welfare benefits or someone currently paying child support and any higher education institutions. Does this include census workers? I assume it does based on this comment: >The legal action that should take place is a sweeping federal law banning anyone's ability to ask for the race of someone, even if only generated for statistical purposes. Here is the problem i see with not having this data at all: there are cases in medicine where race is a factor in the efficacy of different drugs and in the exposure to certain diseases\/conditions. A known condition in this category is sickle cell anemia. Knowing the population's exposure to a given disease that has racial \"bias\" (i.e. potentially 20% of the population) helps the government and medical institutions plan properly and be more efficient at their job of preventing and treating disease. In other words, an *aggregate* representation of race in population is useful statistically for medical reasons at the very least.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4012.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"4xnx86","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: There is a spectrum of two genders, you can be anywhere you want but there are no others. This always baffles me when people say there are more than 2 genders. I don't get it. Yes, I get that you can be a feminine male or a masculine female or that you want to change your gender. But I don't think anything else exists. I also don't get the whole \"transgender\" thing. I thought the whole point of being transgender was to change your gender, not to go through life marked as transgender. If you want to be a woman, be a woman or the other way around. You're not transgender, you are the gender you choose to be. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6gzr9p","c_root_id_B":"d6gzqzt","created_at_utc_A":1471178881,"created_at_utc_B":1471178860,"score_A":27,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> I also don't get the whole \"transgender\" thing. I thought the whole point of being transgender was to change your gender, not to go through life marked as transgender. If you want to be a woman, be a woman or the other way around. You're not transgender, you are the gender you choose to be. \"Transgender\" is a modifier on, not a replacement for, \"man\" or \"woman\". I am a trans woman in the same sense that I am a white woman or an American woman - there are women who are not trans in the same sense that there are women who are not white or women who are not American, but they remain women just as I do. That aside, a lot of trans people would love to live in a world where a transitioned trans person was just 'a man' or 'a woman'. But in practice, we don't live in that world. Socially, of course, there's still plenty of hostility towards trans folks, particularly those who 'pass' poorly. For example, when was the last time your ability to use the bathroom was opposed by ads painting you as a creepy guy standing over an innocent schoolgirl, OP? Our status is also of medical relevance sometimes. For example, I have not changed my legal sex, so I still showed up as 'male' on documents when I got surgery recently. But it was important for the doctors to know that I have unusual anatomy and body chemistry for that marker - if they ran my blood using male ranges, for example, I'd come up anemic even though I'm comfortably within female ranges. On the other hand, if I were marked female on documents, it'd be pretty important for them to know that I do not have a uterus and would not have a typical up-and-down hormone profile of a woman my age. On top of *that*, the fact that we went through transition is a very important piece of our history. I live my life as a woman today, but I am shaped by having been raised as a man. I am certainly shaped by how I was treated by my family when I came out. If you want to know me, and know where I come from, it's important to know that I am trans and went through a lot of experiences relating to it. As an example, my sort-of-girlfriend knows that I remain pretty uncomfortable with certain kinds of sexuality, because a decade-plus of being an unrealized trans woman with the sexual mores of a boy raised in a conservative family left a lot of scars on my ability to enjoy sexual contact. So, OP, I am a trans woman. I am trans in that I've had an unusual and often difficult relationship with my sex throughout my life. I am a woman in that that is who and what I present myself as and live as every day now. Those two don't contradict one another: they're two of the many pieces of who I am.","human_ref_B":"On the transgender note, trans women and trans men are women and men, the trans or transgender is just an additive descriptive word, used whenever it's relevant. Like saying \"Trans women cannot give birth like most cis women, but some cis women can't give birth either.\" If you were to take out the descriptive words \"trans\" and \"cis\" it wouldn't make sense. I do agree, however, that when speaking about trans women and men, that using the modifier shouldn't be required in most settings, whenever it's irrelevant. Like in a news report, if a trans woman was killed in a drunk driving accident the report should say \"Woman Killed in Accident\" and not \"Trans Woman Killed in Accident\" because the woman being trans has nothing to do with her being in an accident. Sorry if my ideas and thoughts are a bit disjointed, hope I explained that part of your prompt and explained why trans women and men are referred to as such.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21.0,"score_ratio":13.5} {"post_id":"4xnx86","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: There is a spectrum of two genders, you can be anywhere you want but there are no others. This always baffles me when people say there are more than 2 genders. I don't get it. Yes, I get that you can be a feminine male or a masculine female or that you want to change your gender. But I don't think anything else exists. I also don't get the whole \"transgender\" thing. I thought the whole point of being transgender was to change your gender, not to go through life marked as transgender. If you want to be a woman, be a woman or the other way around. You're not transgender, you are the gender you choose to be. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6h25es","c_root_id_B":"d6hjjmr","created_at_utc_A":1471184337,"created_at_utc_B":1471211749,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The way you're approaching it is wrong: there are indeed only two genders\/sexes, but being \"trans\" is not your gender, but rather your biological state. No matter how much hormone therapy and surgery you go through, you will always have the same chromosomes you were born with, meaning that while you might feel or look like a female\/male, you're still biologically a male\/female. You can call it bigoted as many do, but there are legitimate reasons for such a discrepancy, not the least of which being medical.","human_ref_B":"> There is a spectrum of two genders, you can be anywhere you want but there are no others. There aren't really only seven colors in a rainbow, it's just that we've defined seven parts of that spectrum and given them names. If something is actually a spectrum then it consists of infinite variations from one end to the other. Us arbitrarily defining the spectrum as only consisting of two states doesn't remove the infinite variation, it just slaps a pair of labels on it. Pointing to the spectrum of how people experience gender and claiming that there are only two labels on that spectrum is convenient, but is it realistic?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27412.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"4xnx86","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: There is a spectrum of two genders, you can be anywhere you want but there are no others. This always baffles me when people say there are more than 2 genders. I don't get it. Yes, I get that you can be a feminine male or a masculine female or that you want to change your gender. But I don't think anything else exists. I also don't get the whole \"transgender\" thing. I thought the whole point of being transgender was to change your gender, not to go through life marked as transgender. If you want to be a woman, be a woman or the other way around. You're not transgender, you are the gender you choose to be. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6hjjmr","c_root_id_B":"d6gzqzt","created_at_utc_A":1471211749,"created_at_utc_B":1471178860,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> There is a spectrum of two genders, you can be anywhere you want but there are no others. There aren't really only seven colors in a rainbow, it's just that we've defined seven parts of that spectrum and given them names. If something is actually a spectrum then it consists of infinite variations from one end to the other. Us arbitrarily defining the spectrum as only consisting of two states doesn't remove the infinite variation, it just slaps a pair of labels on it. Pointing to the spectrum of how people experience gender and claiming that there are only two labels on that spectrum is convenient, but is it realistic?","human_ref_B":"On the transgender note, trans women and trans men are women and men, the trans or transgender is just an additive descriptive word, used whenever it's relevant. Like saying \"Trans women cannot give birth like most cis women, but some cis women can't give birth either.\" If you were to take out the descriptive words \"trans\" and \"cis\" it wouldn't make sense. I do agree, however, that when speaking about trans women and men, that using the modifier shouldn't be required in most settings, whenever it's irrelevant. Like in a news report, if a trans woman was killed in a drunk driving accident the report should say \"Woman Killed in Accident\" and not \"Trans Woman Killed in Accident\" because the woman being trans has nothing to do with her being in an accident. Sorry if my ideas and thoughts are a bit disjointed, hope I explained that part of your prompt and explained why trans women and men are referred to as such.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":32889.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"4xnx86","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.65,"history":"CMV: There is a spectrum of two genders, you can be anywhere you want but there are no others. This always baffles me when people say there are more than 2 genders. I don't get it. Yes, I get that you can be a feminine male or a masculine female or that you want to change your gender. But I don't think anything else exists. I also don't get the whole \"transgender\" thing. I thought the whole point of being transgender was to change your gender, not to go through life marked as transgender. If you want to be a woman, be a woman or the other way around. You're not transgender, you are the gender you choose to be. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"d6gzqzt","c_root_id_B":"d6h25es","created_at_utc_A":1471178860,"created_at_utc_B":1471184337,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"On the transgender note, trans women and trans men are women and men, the trans or transgender is just an additive descriptive word, used whenever it's relevant. Like saying \"Trans women cannot give birth like most cis women, but some cis women can't give birth either.\" If you were to take out the descriptive words \"trans\" and \"cis\" it wouldn't make sense. I do agree, however, that when speaking about trans women and men, that using the modifier shouldn't be required in most settings, whenever it's irrelevant. Like in a news report, if a trans woman was killed in a drunk driving accident the report should say \"Woman Killed in Accident\" and not \"Trans Woman Killed in Accident\" because the woman being trans has nothing to do with her being in an accident. Sorry if my ideas and thoughts are a bit disjointed, hope I explained that part of your prompt and explained why trans women and men are referred to as such.","human_ref_B":"The way you're approaching it is wrong: there are indeed only two genders\/sexes, but being \"trans\" is not your gender, but rather your biological state. No matter how much hormone therapy and surgery you go through, you will always have the same chromosomes you were born with, meaning that while you might feel or look like a female\/male, you're still biologically a male\/female. You can call it bigoted as many do, but there are legitimate reasons for such a discrepancy, not the least of which being medical.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5477.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"3mckk6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: The term \"Sexual Assault\" is far too broad to be meaningful, and statistics regarding sexual assault drastically inflate the problem by conflating an unwanted kiss with rape I think when most people hear the term \"Sexual Assault\" they automatically assume rape. When statistics for sexual assault on campuses are referenced in the media they almost always cite frequency of sexual assault, then go on to discuss issues around rape. There is so much difference between coming on strong and rape that having one term to describe them both is confusing at best and often deliberately disingenuous to make the problem seem much more prevalent than it is. I don't think rape isn't an issue, and I'm not saying that everything up to penetration is fine. I do think that the surveys used to create these statistics are so broad with their definition of \"sexual assault\" as to be meaningless, and that we need to rethink how we define it if we want people who aren't already on board with fighting \"rape culture\" to take it seriously. It's a lot like lumping marijuana in with heroine and saying all drugs are bad. When someone tries marijuana and finds it to not be a big deal, they're less likely to take your word when you say that heroine is dangerous because drugs=bad. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cve1rip","c_root_id_B":"cve2p9n","created_at_utc_A":1443207362,"created_at_utc_B":1443208813,"score_A":16,"score_B":29,"human_ref_A":"> There is so much difference between coming on strong and rape that having one term to describe them both is confusing at best and often deliberately disingenuous to make the problem seem much more prevalent than it is From this statement, I infer that you don't truly believe women experience the level of intimidation, objectification, and exploitation that they do. I'm not entirely sure if your objection to the term \"sexual assault\" used in cases of forced kissing, groping, etc, is a result of displeasure over the misuse of the term, or from not believing it's an issue to begin with. I'm not certain, but I feel you may be underestimating how current cultural standards allow for an environment where assault against women is downplayed or dismissed. From a man's point of view, for instance, an unwanted grope or kiss may be annoying, but from a woman's point of view, it's disgusting and\/or frightening.","human_ref_B":"I think you have to acknowledge how the term \"sexual assault\" is typically used. It's kind of like the term \"violent crime\". Sure, murder is not the same as a bar fight, is not the same as domestic violence, is not the same as getting jumped in an alley. But it all points toward the same *type* of crime and is useful when talking about stopping that *type* of crime. The thing people are worried about is the same: violence. As far as \"sexual assault\", you're right that an unwanted kiss is not the same as groping is not the same as rape. But it all points to the same *type* of crime: sexual behavior without consent. I would argue that type of broad categorization is useful. If what I want to address is violence in a city, \"violent crime\" is actually a great way to address it. If what I want to talk about is sexual behavior without consent on college campuses, \"sexual assault\" is a great way to address it. And things can become more granular as needed. We have words like sexual battery, rape, groping, etc. for just those purposes. Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the way you worded your question makes it seem like you don't think it's such a big deal if a guy gropes a girl or kisses her when she doesn't want it. And that I would sorely disagree with. That *is* a big deal because it is ignoring the consent of the other party.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1451.0,"score_ratio":1.8125} {"post_id":"3mckk6","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"CMV: The term \"Sexual Assault\" is far too broad to be meaningful, and statistics regarding sexual assault drastically inflate the problem by conflating an unwanted kiss with rape I think when most people hear the term \"Sexual Assault\" they automatically assume rape. When statistics for sexual assault on campuses are referenced in the media they almost always cite frequency of sexual assault, then go on to discuss issues around rape. There is so much difference between coming on strong and rape that having one term to describe them both is confusing at best and often deliberately disingenuous to make the problem seem much more prevalent than it is. I don't think rape isn't an issue, and I'm not saying that everything up to penetration is fine. I do think that the surveys used to create these statistics are so broad with their definition of \"sexual assault\" as to be meaningless, and that we need to rethink how we define it if we want people who aren't already on board with fighting \"rape culture\" to take it seriously. It's a lot like lumping marijuana in with heroine and saying all drugs are bad. When someone tries marijuana and finds it to not be a big deal, they're less likely to take your word when you say that heroine is dangerous because drugs=bad. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cve1rip","c_root_id_B":"cve49lm","created_at_utc_A":1443207362,"created_at_utc_B":1443211240,"score_A":16,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"> There is so much difference between coming on strong and rape that having one term to describe them both is confusing at best and often deliberately disingenuous to make the problem seem much more prevalent than it is From this statement, I infer that you don't truly believe women experience the level of intimidation, objectification, and exploitation that they do. I'm not entirely sure if your objection to the term \"sexual assault\" used in cases of forced kissing, groping, etc, is a result of displeasure over the misuse of the term, or from not believing it's an issue to begin with. I'm not certain, but I feel you may be underestimating how current cultural standards allow for an environment where assault against women is downplayed or dismissed. From a man's point of view, for instance, an unwanted grope or kiss may be annoying, but from a woman's point of view, it's disgusting and\/or frightening.","human_ref_B":"Which statistic? The most prominent and salient figure used to support feminist ideas of rape culture and emphasize the problem of rape in the US is that \"1 in 5\" women are raped at some point in their life. This number comes from a CDC study measuring the prevalence of various types of sexual assault. If you pay attention, you see that even though the authors tried to measure a broad spectrum of assaults or harassment, they didn't lump everything together to make broad conclusions. The term \"rape\" from that study includes successful forced penetrations, attempted forced penetrations, and successful penetrations \"facilitated by drugs or alcohol.\" As for the alcohol, you can read the particular survey question in the appendix and see that it specifically asks about instances where the victim is so intoxicated that they were unable to consent. Even if you take out the alcohol and attempts, the figure for completed forced penetration is still 12.3% \u2248 1 in 8, which I think most people would agree is still pretty high. So \"1 in 5\", which is the most touted statistic about the prevalence of rape, is based on measuring actual rape with penetration, instead of assault generally.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3878.0,"score_ratio":1.0625} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9ss83e","c_root_id_B":"c9su56r","created_at_utc_A":1367759183,"created_at_utc_B":1367768217,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Just one last thing, since everything else seems to have been covered. There are a lot more uneducated people than educated. The majority, actually, are uneducated by your account. Therefore, unless the ratio is 2:1 or something similar, the fact is that droves of people with half a vote will still make their candidate come out on top.","human_ref_B":"Is education free and universally available for boys and girls in Pakistan? If somehow you are not educated as a child, is it possible to be freely educated as an adult in Pakistan? If things are not true than an education restriction of the vote will result in a systematic denial of quality education to minority groups in order to prevent them from being able to cast votes. This is not pure speculation but an historical situation in the US. Please read about \"Jim Crow Laws\" and the later \"Voting Rights Act of 1965\".","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9034.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sshub","c_root_id_B":"c9su56r","created_at_utc_A":1367760814,"created_at_utc_B":1367768217,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"From what I've seen of college, I don't think it would help too much. Sadly, going to college doesn't mean becoming educated unless you want it to. Then again, I am in America, so take it with a grain of salt. Also, just because someone doesn't have a highschool education doesn't mean they are stupid. And sadly I don't think there is a way to test that. Who's to say who has a correct or incorrect political opinion?","human_ref_B":"Is education free and universally available for boys and girls in Pakistan? If somehow you are not educated as a child, is it possible to be freely educated as an adult in Pakistan? If things are not true than an education restriction of the vote will result in a systematic denial of quality education to minority groups in order to prevent them from being able to cast votes. This is not pure speculation but an historical situation in the US. Please read about \"Jim Crow Laws\" and the later \"Voting Rights Act of 1965\".","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7403.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9su56r","c_root_id_B":"c9ssisk","created_at_utc_A":1367768217,"created_at_utc_B":1367760968,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Is education free and universally available for boys and girls in Pakistan? If somehow you are not educated as a child, is it possible to be freely educated as an adult in Pakistan? If things are not true than an education restriction of the vote will result in a systematic denial of quality education to minority groups in order to prevent them from being able to cast votes. This is not pure speculation but an historical situation in the US. Please read about \"Jim Crow Laws\" and the later \"Voting Rights Act of 1965\".","human_ref_B":"You are assuming that an educatedperson will vote more rationally. I believe you are mistaken. Many uneducated people know very well what is right and wrong and many educated people are religious fanatics with no clue to what is right and wrong. Many people are also self-educated.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7249.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9su56r","c_root_id_B":"c9ssy49","created_at_utc_A":1367768217,"created_at_utc_B":1367763187,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Is education free and universally available for boys and girls in Pakistan? If somehow you are not educated as a child, is it possible to be freely educated as an adult in Pakistan? If things are not true than an education restriction of the vote will result in a systematic denial of quality education to minority groups in order to prevent them from being able to cast votes. This is not pure speculation but an historical situation in the US. Please read about \"Jim Crow Laws\" and the later \"Voting Rights Act of 1965\".","human_ref_B":"The major issue I see is \"who is providing the education?\" If the institutes of education are controlled by any particular group, they will decide what does and does not make it into the curriculum. Then people will vote based on the information they *have* and not the information that's out there. This is what happens anyway, but the difference is that all people who are considered \"educated\" or \"uneducated\" are representing different aspects of available information. If only those considered educated by the official educational system are having their votes fully counted, then there will always be only the \"official\" position that is fully represented. He who provides the diameter of your information controls the circumference of your activity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5030.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sxmf7","c_root_id_B":"c9ss83e","created_at_utc_A":1367779705,"created_at_utc_B":1367759183,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","human_ref_B":"Just one last thing, since everything else seems to have been covered. There are a lot more uneducated people than educated. The majority, actually, are uneducated by your account. Therefore, unless the ratio is 2:1 or something similar, the fact is that droves of people with half a vote will still make their candidate come out on top.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20522.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sxmf7","c_root_id_B":"c9sshub","created_at_utc_A":1367779705,"created_at_utc_B":1367760814,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","human_ref_B":"From what I've seen of college, I don't think it would help too much. Sadly, going to college doesn't mean becoming educated unless you want it to. Then again, I am in America, so take it with a grain of salt. Also, just because someone doesn't have a highschool education doesn't mean they are stupid. And sadly I don't think there is a way to test that. Who's to say who has a correct or incorrect political opinion?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18891.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sxmf7","c_root_id_B":"c9ssisk","created_at_utc_A":1367779705,"created_at_utc_B":1367760968,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","human_ref_B":"You are assuming that an educatedperson will vote more rationally. I believe you are mistaken. Many uneducated people know very well what is right and wrong and many educated people are religious fanatics with no clue to what is right and wrong. Many people are also self-educated.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18737.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sxmf7","c_root_id_B":"c9ssy49","created_at_utc_A":1367779705,"created_at_utc_B":1367763187,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","human_ref_B":"The major issue I see is \"who is providing the education?\" If the institutes of education are controlled by any particular group, they will decide what does and does not make it into the curriculum. Then people will vote based on the information they *have* and not the information that's out there. This is what happens anyway, but the difference is that all people who are considered \"educated\" or \"uneducated\" are representing different aspects of available information. If only those considered educated by the official educational system are having their votes fully counted, then there will always be only the \"official\" position that is fully represented. He who provides the diameter of your information controls the circumference of your activity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16518.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9suezf","c_root_id_B":"c9sxmf7","created_at_utc_A":1367769227,"created_at_utc_B":1367779705,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I am a US citizen holding a terminal Masters degree. If the US were to adopt such a system my vote would count more than most but less than others, until I earned my $100 mail-order PhD degree. Since I was educated abroad, would my vote count more or less than US educated voters. Should a Harvard educated citizen's vote count more than a Yale educated citizen or a University of Wyoming educated citizen. Gore graduated from Harvard. Bush graduated from Yale. Cheney dropped out of Yale and graduated from the University of Wyoming. How do you weight their votes? Imagine a small city that adopted such a system. Could not you make inferences about who voted for whom based on the weighted vote total.","human_ref_B":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10478.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9suf0r","c_root_id_B":"c9sxmf7","created_at_utc_A":1367769231,"created_at_utc_B":1367779705,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Who defines what is \"educated\" though? How will you go about ensuring it's not \"agrees with me\"? What if we say that \"if you are not a muslim, then you are ignorant and cannot vote\"? What if there's some particular subject or certification which is particularly expensive, and therefore unnecessarily restricts the pool of \"educated\" people?","human_ref_B":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10474.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sux2p","c_root_id_B":"c9sxmf7","created_at_utc_A":1367771001,"created_at_utc_B":1367779705,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. Look, you can count on just about all politicians being scumbag sociopaths, and only there for personal gain. Thus, their _intentions_ are: - 1) acquire money - 2) acquire power (in order to better acquire more money). Their _abilities_ are: - 1) lie, persuade, cheat and mislead - 2) get (re-)elected. I'd recommend moving to a less insane country if you can, while there are still some left.","human_ref_B":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8704.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sv8q5","c_root_id_B":"c9sxmf7","created_at_utc_A":1367772083,"created_at_utc_B":1367779705,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm sure the politicians in my country are highly educated. But I wouldn't give them any more weight than anyone else. Otherwise they just vote themselves and their friends in. The poor and uneducated of the country will have no one interested or willing to represent or defend them.","human_ref_B":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7622.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sxmf7","c_root_id_B":"c9svhp7","created_at_utc_A":1367779705,"created_at_utc_B":1367772855,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","human_ref_B":"I too live in Pakistan, and am highly saddened by the current political situation in our country, however, votes based on education are not going to improve much in the long run. Here's why: 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of uneducated individuals highly outnumber the educated individuals in our country, meaning that a minority will only have access to bring change in the country. Naturally, the lower class uneducated people will most probably rise up, and may in fact get violent in that process (and both of us know how violent they can get, coupled by the fact that a certain rich percentage in our country are uneducated) 2. Also, the people who are receiving education in this country (those with a voting power according to you) are more or less well off, since the standard of education here fluctuates largely across the country. If a candidate rises who promises to make beneficial changes to our country, at the expense of the rich, educated class, well, a large percentage will definitely not be voting for him, as they too are out to preserve their own interests. These people are definitely not going to be willing to sacrifice their own blessings for the good of the country, and if these people only have the power to vote, well, you can see where I'm going with this. I get where you are coming from OP; a large percentage of people vote for the person who throws more money at them rather than thinking for themselves while casting a vote. Your plan could somewhat work if the standard of education was regulated in the country, and if the literacy rate was higher, but at this time I'm sorry to say that it is not a good plan at all. (Unrelated to your post OP, but if you could vote for anyone in the current elections, who would get your vote?)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6850.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sw2w4","c_root_id_B":"c9sxmf7","created_at_utc_A":1367774730,"created_at_utc_B":1367779705,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I won't debate whether or not such a system would produce a government with \"better\" policies. Others have already done so. The problem with your plan is that is unsustainable. The democratic system is not in place because it selects the most effective leader, but because it prevents popular violence i.e., revolts and riots. If votes were weighted by education, than the vast majority of the population would not get what they wanted, which would lead to instability and rebellion. Your plan would not work because it would mean the collapse of the government.","human_ref_B":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4975.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sxmf7","c_root_id_B":"c9sw7gq","created_at_utc_A":1367779705,"created_at_utc_B":1367775156,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","human_ref_B":"I have a friend that for some pretty shitty reasons didn't finish highschool. They are one of the smartest people I know, and they are quite knowledgeable in regards to politics - more so than lots of other people I know. They don't make much effort to keep up with politics because they don't vote, but without even trying they can run rings around other people in a discussion about politics. This friend had a shitty home life which was strongly anti-intellectual, and they weren't a good fit for school because they didn't get supported, challenged or given the opportunity to excel. I'd hate to think that this person wouldn't qualify to vote - or would get less power in politics - just because they didn't get a formal education. Imagine if your voting was weighted by your IQ. Now imagine that IQ test was English-only. Now imagine that IQ test was culturally specific to the US. I'm sure you could imagine how unjust this is. Now imagine that for whatever reasons you can't\/don't attend school - that you have special needs, that you get expelled because of your behavior, because you get harassed, because of illness. That 'test' - being able to attend every day, being able to conform, being well enough to attend, having your needs met so that you can attend - is the test to see how much of a say you get in your society. Not so fair, huh?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4549.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sxmf7","c_root_id_B":"c9swz4y","created_at_utc_A":1367779705,"created_at_utc_B":1367777637,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","human_ref_B":"How would you handle political issues that are relevant only to poor uneducated people, such as farming subsidies and infrastructure or safety nets? Why do you assume that I, as a middle-class, urban educated male would have their best interest at heart when voting and not vote for the politician who promises more police on my street?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2068.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sxmf7","c_root_id_B":"c9sx7z1","created_at_utc_A":1367779705,"created_at_utc_B":1367778427,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hey OP, I'm also from Pakistan. I believe Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Pakistan is a perfect example of this: people who are so utterly confused with identity, and just refuse to even consider secularism. However, consider the 'educated middle class'. My parents are successful professionals, both are educated, yet I am sure even they would be extremely skeptic of a secular party. They haven't experienced anything other than what their parents told them and the religious fervor they saw growing up, to the point that Islam enters every single discussion. I understand what you are feeling, but eventually education is meaningless, especially considering that every dickhead has atleast a bachelor's degree now. Educated people can be the biggest fools because they are so programmed to trust society and degree conferring institutes. Most of them can't think for themselves and are slaves to the system. This is more of a rant, and I'm not exactly trying to Change Your View here, but although I agree with you that the ignorant rarely know what's good for them, the educated can be bigger fools.","human_ref_B":"you're making the assumption that dumb people are more easily manpulated. I have to disagree, you just do it differently.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1278.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9teqv4","c_root_id_B":"c9ssy49","created_at_utc_A":1367848348,"created_at_utc_B":1367763187,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","human_ref_B":"The major issue I see is \"who is providing the education?\" If the institutes of education are controlled by any particular group, they will decide what does and does not make it into the curriculum. Then people will vote based on the information they *have* and not the information that's out there. This is what happens anyway, but the difference is that all people who are considered \"educated\" or \"uneducated\" are representing different aspects of available information. If only those considered educated by the official educational system are having their votes fully counted, then there will always be only the \"official\" position that is fully represented. He who provides the diameter of your information controls the circumference of your activity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":85161.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9teqv4","c_root_id_B":"c9suezf","created_at_utc_A":1367848348,"created_at_utc_B":1367769227,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","human_ref_B":"I am a US citizen holding a terminal Masters degree. If the US were to adopt such a system my vote would count more than most but less than others, until I earned my $100 mail-order PhD degree. Since I was educated abroad, would my vote count more or less than US educated voters. Should a Harvard educated citizen's vote count more than a Yale educated citizen or a University of Wyoming educated citizen. Gore graduated from Harvard. Bush graduated from Yale. Cheney dropped out of Yale and graduated from the University of Wyoming. How do you weight their votes? Imagine a small city that adopted such a system. Could not you make inferences about who voted for whom based on the weighted vote total.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":79121.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9suf0r","c_root_id_B":"c9teqv4","created_at_utc_A":1367769231,"created_at_utc_B":1367848348,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Who defines what is \"educated\" though? How will you go about ensuring it's not \"agrees with me\"? What if we say that \"if you are not a muslim, then you are ignorant and cannot vote\"? What if there's some particular subject or certification which is particularly expensive, and therefore unnecessarily restricts the pool of \"educated\" people?","human_ref_B":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":79117.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9teqv4","c_root_id_B":"c9sux2p","created_at_utc_A":1367848348,"created_at_utc_B":1367771001,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","human_ref_B":"> This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. Look, you can count on just about all politicians being scumbag sociopaths, and only there for personal gain. Thus, their _intentions_ are: - 1) acquire money - 2) acquire power (in order to better acquire more money). Their _abilities_ are: - 1) lie, persuade, cheat and mislead - 2) get (re-)elected. I'd recommend moving to a less insane country if you can, while there are still some left.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":77347.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sv8q5","c_root_id_B":"c9teqv4","created_at_utc_A":1367772083,"created_at_utc_B":1367848348,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm sure the politicians in my country are highly educated. But I wouldn't give them any more weight than anyone else. Otherwise they just vote themselves and their friends in. The poor and uneducated of the country will have no one interested or willing to represent or defend them.","human_ref_B":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":76265.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9teqv4","c_root_id_B":"c9svhp7","created_at_utc_A":1367848348,"created_at_utc_B":1367772855,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","human_ref_B":"I too live in Pakistan, and am highly saddened by the current political situation in our country, however, votes based on education are not going to improve much in the long run. Here's why: 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of uneducated individuals highly outnumber the educated individuals in our country, meaning that a minority will only have access to bring change in the country. Naturally, the lower class uneducated people will most probably rise up, and may in fact get violent in that process (and both of us know how violent they can get, coupled by the fact that a certain rich percentage in our country are uneducated) 2. Also, the people who are receiving education in this country (those with a voting power according to you) are more or less well off, since the standard of education here fluctuates largely across the country. If a candidate rises who promises to make beneficial changes to our country, at the expense of the rich, educated class, well, a large percentage will definitely not be voting for him, as they too are out to preserve their own interests. These people are definitely not going to be willing to sacrifice their own blessings for the good of the country, and if these people only have the power to vote, well, you can see where I'm going with this. I get where you are coming from OP; a large percentage of people vote for the person who throws more money at them rather than thinking for themselves while casting a vote. Your plan could somewhat work if the standard of education was regulated in the country, and if the literacy rate was higher, but at this time I'm sorry to say that it is not a good plan at all. (Unrelated to your post OP, but if you could vote for anyone in the current elections, who would get your vote?)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":75493.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sw2w4","c_root_id_B":"c9teqv4","created_at_utc_A":1367774730,"created_at_utc_B":1367848348,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I won't debate whether or not such a system would produce a government with \"better\" policies. Others have already done so. The problem with your plan is that is unsustainable. The democratic system is not in place because it selects the most effective leader, but because it prevents popular violence i.e., revolts and riots. If votes were weighted by education, than the vast majority of the population would not get what they wanted, which would lead to instability and rebellion. Your plan would not work because it would mean the collapse of the government.","human_ref_B":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":73618.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sw7gq","c_root_id_B":"c9teqv4","created_at_utc_A":1367775156,"created_at_utc_B":1367848348,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I have a friend that for some pretty shitty reasons didn't finish highschool. They are one of the smartest people I know, and they are quite knowledgeable in regards to politics - more so than lots of other people I know. They don't make much effort to keep up with politics because they don't vote, but without even trying they can run rings around other people in a discussion about politics. This friend had a shitty home life which was strongly anti-intellectual, and they weren't a good fit for school because they didn't get supported, challenged or given the opportunity to excel. I'd hate to think that this person wouldn't qualify to vote - or would get less power in politics - just because they didn't get a formal education. Imagine if your voting was weighted by your IQ. Now imagine that IQ test was English-only. Now imagine that IQ test was culturally specific to the US. I'm sure you could imagine how unjust this is. Now imagine that for whatever reasons you can't\/don't attend school - that you have special needs, that you get expelled because of your behavior, because you get harassed, because of illness. That 'test' - being able to attend every day, being able to conform, being well enough to attend, having your needs met so that you can attend - is the test to see how much of a say you get in your society. Not so fair, huh?","human_ref_B":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":73192.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9teqv4","c_root_id_B":"c9swz4y","created_at_utc_A":1367848348,"created_at_utc_B":1367777637,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","human_ref_B":"How would you handle political issues that are relevant only to poor uneducated people, such as farming subsidies and infrastructure or safety nets? Why do you assume that I, as a middle-class, urban educated male would have their best interest at heart when voting and not vote for the politician who promises more police on my street?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":70711.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9teqv4","c_root_id_B":"c9sx7z1","created_at_utc_A":1367848348,"created_at_utc_B":1367778427,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","human_ref_B":"you're making the assumption that dumb people are more easily manpulated. I have to disagree, you just do it differently.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":69921.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9teqv4","c_root_id_B":"c9sydut","created_at_utc_A":1367848348,"created_at_utc_B":1367782097,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","human_ref_B":"I think the main problem with this is that \"one man, one vote\" is an untouchable principle. And this is good, since everything else would lead to no good. So let's say, you would introcduce a voting system as you proposed. Educated people would say, \"Why does my vote not count double as much as a normal vote\". People would only argue about how much a vote should count, not about the real problem. In hundret years, either 10% of the people would decide everything, or the other 90% would throw the system over.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":66251.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9sykhs","c_root_id_B":"c9teqv4","created_at_utc_A":1367782680,"created_at_utc_B":1367848348,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Rational actors vote according to their self-interest, and if the educated have more voting power, they will turn the government to their own benefit to the neglect of everyone else.","human_ref_B":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":65668.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9t18oy","c_root_id_B":"c9teqv4","created_at_utc_A":1367791057,"created_at_utc_B":1367848348,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"One problem is that education is strongly correlated with social class. In the US, for example, white people are *much, much* more likely to be educated than black people. This would mean that the vote of a white person would count more than the vote of a black person. Now, I'll concede it's *possible* that white people are better equipped to make these sorts of decisions than black people. But it also means that, deliberately or not, whites are likely to vote for changes that benefit whites -- perpetuating that inequality. It doesn't matter if it falls along racial boundaries -- though like I said, I do think there's a strong correlation with race in the US. But any time one group has more of a vote than another group, the group with more of a vote will naturally be the one which benefits, which likely means *continuing* to have more vote. Now, it *might* be better if people were required to pass some sort of intelligence test, or basic knowledge test, in order to vote -- or if their vote were scored based on this. But again, this is likely to be biased towards one group or another, and the bias is likely to get worse over time. Finally, how would you implement this? To do this, you'd have to win an election. If you won an election, why would you want to mess with the system that got you elected? Plus, if you run for office on the premise that you're going to add something like this, how will you get the uneducated masses to vote for you? The wealthy landowners would just have to spread the idea that it's \"elitism\" to value intelligence and education, and that good, hardworking, everyday folk are no better. They'd paint *you* as the person who thinks they're better than everyone else. In fact, this *already* happens in the US, to a large degree. So in principle I almost agree with you, but I don't think this actually works in practice.","human_ref_B":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":57291.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9t2cae","c_root_id_B":"c9teqv4","created_at_utc_A":1367794606,"created_at_utc_B":1367848348,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think a better solution would be to have required testing for all candidates and their cabinets, if they have one. No minimum scoring requirements, but a clear display of what they know. Both about traditional subjects and the specific details of a representative's constituents. Wouldn't it be nice to know that the Minister of Finance is a formed failed used car salesman? Or that they don't know what the chief crop of their region is? Or how they don't know how many people only have access to dirty water, water that sickens people to drink, water they still pay for. I don't know if you know, but America actually had a law like the one you're linking about. The 3\/5 Compromise. Granted, ours was more racially directed, but it's a flawed solution, both functionally and morally. But, America is far from good either. We are only able to enjoy such a high standard of living at the expense of others. This system will also fail unless it is fixed as well.","human_ref_B":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":53742.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dq62w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I live in Pakistan, after seeing the rampant destruction of my country by politicians, I have come to believe that voting should weighted according to education, not 'one man, one vote' TCMV I live in one of the major cities of Pakistan and my country has been ranked as one of the worst in the world. My country has something similar to a feudal system in the rural areas and people vote for their chiefs or landlords most of the time. Most of the population is illiterate and uneducated and thus can be swayed easily by promises by politicians. Yet, their standard of living has not improved at a larger scale. The politics here are hugely simplified and almost every party promises an Islamic republic, yet no one knows whether they are proponents of a free market, protected trade, civil rights. Whether they are socialist or capitalist. But everywhere, on television, billboards and posters, they promise things like 'no blackouts' (the past month, the average electricity per day was only 8 hours in the cities. The situation although a bit better has been like this for more than a decade and promises are made every month.) Riots and killings of political candidates are common here by the same uneducated people and religious bigots and these people vote only due to family loyalties. Two of the most famous candidates and the current incumbent of the provincial government of Punjab has been involved in financial scandals, where the wealth of many Pakistanis was destroyed. His niece called her guards and beat a poor sweeper just because he wouldn't give her a cake late at night because the bakery was closed and he couldn't go inside. His nephew tortured and beat his wife and he holds a position of power here. I must also mention that many of the members of the National Assembly have been disqualified because they hadn't graduated from a university. They did not have the faintest idea of political science of what a state consists, yet they were able to win their seats Thus, I have come to believe that the vote of the uneducated person must only be counted at a 0.5 score. The person who has passed high school, his vote should be counted at a 0.65 score. While the university graduate would have his vote counted at the score of 1. Having a doctorate gives another bonus, with the score being 1.1. This is due to the fact that the educated person will better be able to gauge the intentions and abilities of the candidates. While, the uneducated masses will not hold as much sway and the politicians would have to make an effort to appeal to the educated classes. Thus, the circumstances of my country and its low standard has caused me to change my view to having votes weighted according to the education of the voter in all developing countries with similar problems.","c_root_id_A":"c9t3xlx","c_root_id_B":"c9teqv4","created_at_utc_A":1367799706,"created_at_utc_B":1367848348,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This is a brilliant post. Props to Op for the idea, sincere condolences for the situation at your home. I know the US has an often-hated system of proto-democracy, i.e. not populist, wherein the public vote does in fact not count for anything. I personally go back and forth about its prudence, as there are plenty of problems politically in this system as well, but consider the concept of an **electoral college**. See wikipedia article here: [http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Electoral_College_(United_States)]","human_ref_B":"I'm from India, and it suffers much of the same problems. But I do believe your suggestion is flawed for the following reasons. 1) A lot of the population is poor and uneducated, while some are rich and uneducated. Voting is one of the few tools the poor have to effect change. Taking that away, or even neutering it will leave them with less than before. 2) Degree mills are quite common. I do believe such a system will cause people to print degrees just for the sake of extra votes. 3) You are taking away the anonymity of voting - which is itself is a dangerous thing. 4) Your pool of candidates needs to change so there are real options. These are just some of the problems I foresee. This is without addressing even if there is real merit to the suggestion (if people with higher education vote for better candidates).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":48642.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"pa3y2d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Environmental movements like Extinction Rebellion do more to harm their cause than help. I'd actively like to be proven wrong here. I think the people behind these movements (including many friends of mine) have their hearts in the right place. And I fully support the cause of combating climate change. It is clear that governments are woefully slow in their response and we are currently hurtling towards disaster. I was speaking to someone at a party recently, who engages in disruptive activism. He had been arrested for gaining access to a power plant and stopping their operations for several hours. I asked him \"since we both know, pausing activities of one plant for a few hours will have negligible effect on emissions. What were they actually trying to achieve?\" He paused for an uncomfortably long time... As if he hadn't asked himself that question before. I wanted to keep things collegial so I suggested perhaps it was to raise awareness. He eagerly accepted my lifeline and agreed it was to 'raise awareness' through the media coverage they gained. Which to be honest was extensive. I didn't make the point to him then. But on later reflection I thought about how these antics are portrayed in the media. Even amongst centre left papers they are not favourable. Ideally, a good protest would cement the views of those on your side. Soften the views of your opponents. And convert some of the undecideds. From conversations I've had, and what I've read online. None of these metrics are being taken into account to measure success. I would in fact venture that this kind of disruptive activism has the adverse effect. It takes people in the middle (the undecideds) and turns them against your cause. Strengthening your opponents arguments... Generally that climate activists are 'anarcho communist whack jobs trying to destroy society'. Hard to argue with when people are chaining themselves to trains. Stopping poor people getting to work and claiming their wages. Or taking up police time while violent crimes are rising in disadvantaged areas. All of which in turn completely distracts from the core message. I concede there are no concrete metrics I can provide on this (I suspect none exist). Only anecdotal ones... But we can look at voting, which in the US placed trump in power for 4 years. And in the UK gave a strong majority to the conservatives. Both of whom actively run on a platform of 'protecting the public from out of control protests', with XR regularly being referenced as an example in the UK. A message that clearly seems to resonate given the follow up success of the conservatives in more recent local elections. Have we not seen enough losses in elections, across the west. To populist and 'bought out' politicians who in some cases flat out deny climate change... To consider the possibility that this kind of disruption does not win hearts and minds. And in fact pushes people away. Into the arms of the populists who promise to keep them safe. Very open to hearing your counter arguments. Please CMV.","c_root_id_A":"ha220b7","c_root_id_B":"ha2017e","created_at_utc_A":1629740148,"created_at_utc_B":1629739353,"score_A":20,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Respectability politics is a sucker's game. There are very few people who actually mean it when they say 'Sure I like their ideas in theory but because they're mean, I actively disagree with everything they do. If they were nicer about it, I might change my mind'. Most people who say that are either A) people who disagree with them and are just looking for a politically justifiable explanation as to why, or B) people who are more concerned with stability and preventing change then they are with anything else, and therefore only support the most gradual of change'. Trying to moderate your actions to appeal to these people just results in you becoming less relevant, at all.","human_ref_B":">Ideally, a good protest would cement the views of those on your side. Soften the views of your opponents. And convert some of the undecideds. It seems like you are applying a framework to these groups that doesn't really represent or describe them. A protest would be going to a power plant and demanding it be shut down. Breaking into the power plant to forcibly shut it down isn't a protest, it is sabotage. By the name of this group - Extinction Rebellion - I wouldn't surmise they are a group that limits itself to protesting or does any protesting at all. The word \"rebellion\" implies active measures directed against their target issue. This group isn't here to change hearts and minds, but to address the problem, however marginally they can. Success isn't measured by political change, because they've accepted there won't be any. It is measured by damage done to the fossil fuel economy. Environmental activists have been demanding substantive action through peaceful protest for decades. That most certainly hasn't worked. We're nearing a point where substantive action won't make much of a difference. That means these groups are relegated to unilateral action. People won't pay attention when they protest. They won't pay attention when they block traffic. Maybe they will pay attention when the power goes out. But if they don't, at least we shut down a fossil fuel power plant for a few hours showing that it can be done.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":795.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"pa3y2d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Environmental movements like Extinction Rebellion do more to harm their cause than help. I'd actively like to be proven wrong here. I think the people behind these movements (including many friends of mine) have their hearts in the right place. And I fully support the cause of combating climate change. It is clear that governments are woefully slow in their response and we are currently hurtling towards disaster. I was speaking to someone at a party recently, who engages in disruptive activism. He had been arrested for gaining access to a power plant and stopping their operations for several hours. I asked him \"since we both know, pausing activities of one plant for a few hours will have negligible effect on emissions. What were they actually trying to achieve?\" He paused for an uncomfortably long time... As if he hadn't asked himself that question before. I wanted to keep things collegial so I suggested perhaps it was to raise awareness. He eagerly accepted my lifeline and agreed it was to 'raise awareness' through the media coverage they gained. Which to be honest was extensive. I didn't make the point to him then. But on later reflection I thought about how these antics are portrayed in the media. Even amongst centre left papers they are not favourable. Ideally, a good protest would cement the views of those on your side. Soften the views of your opponents. And convert some of the undecideds. From conversations I've had, and what I've read online. None of these metrics are being taken into account to measure success. I would in fact venture that this kind of disruptive activism has the adverse effect. It takes people in the middle (the undecideds) and turns them against your cause. Strengthening your opponents arguments... Generally that climate activists are 'anarcho communist whack jobs trying to destroy society'. Hard to argue with when people are chaining themselves to trains. Stopping poor people getting to work and claiming their wages. Or taking up police time while violent crimes are rising in disadvantaged areas. All of which in turn completely distracts from the core message. I concede there are no concrete metrics I can provide on this (I suspect none exist). Only anecdotal ones... But we can look at voting, which in the US placed trump in power for 4 years. And in the UK gave a strong majority to the conservatives. Both of whom actively run on a platform of 'protecting the public from out of control protests', with XR regularly being referenced as an example in the UK. A message that clearly seems to resonate given the follow up success of the conservatives in more recent local elections. Have we not seen enough losses in elections, across the west. To populist and 'bought out' politicians who in some cases flat out deny climate change... To consider the possibility that this kind of disruption does not win hearts and minds. And in fact pushes people away. Into the arms of the populists who promise to keep them safe. Very open to hearing your counter arguments. Please CMV.","c_root_id_A":"ha220b7","c_root_id_B":"ha20m9e","created_at_utc_A":1629740148,"created_at_utc_B":1629739589,"score_A":20,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Respectability politics is a sucker's game. There are very few people who actually mean it when they say 'Sure I like their ideas in theory but because they're mean, I actively disagree with everything they do. If they were nicer about it, I might change my mind'. Most people who say that are either A) people who disagree with them and are just looking for a politically justifiable explanation as to why, or B) people who are more concerned with stability and preventing change then they are with anything else, and therefore only support the most gradual of change'. Trying to moderate your actions to appeal to these people just results in you becoming less relevant, at all.","human_ref_B":"> I would in fact venture that this kind of disruptive activism has the adverse effect. It takes people in the middle (the undecideds) and turns them against your cause. Everyone aside for a tiny minority is already \"against\" the cause of preventing climate change and other environmental destruction. Some people are against it because they think preserving some facets of the current economy are more important than reducing the risks to the future. Some people are actively spiteful and oppositional to the climate change agenda just to be reactionary. Most people just don't give enough of a shit to make even the smallest of personal sacrifices. The thing is that the apathetic middle's way of being against environmentalism is just as destructive as anyone else's. The situation can barely get worse than it is already, so I see no risk in a few more people being intellectually against being greener when they are already practically against being greener. We have so little to lose on this issue that it's worth taking bigger risks. I would say that maybe the more extreme climate change activists should switch tactics if there was any shred of a speck of a hope that anything other than extremism would be remotely helpful. I don't see an alternative to getting into people's faces and letting them know that the age of being lazy and complacent about climate change is over. Do you see an alternative?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":559.0,"score_ratio":6.6666666667} {"post_id":"pa3y2d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Environmental movements like Extinction Rebellion do more to harm their cause than help. I'd actively like to be proven wrong here. I think the people behind these movements (including many friends of mine) have their hearts in the right place. And I fully support the cause of combating climate change. It is clear that governments are woefully slow in their response and we are currently hurtling towards disaster. I was speaking to someone at a party recently, who engages in disruptive activism. He had been arrested for gaining access to a power plant and stopping their operations for several hours. I asked him \"since we both know, pausing activities of one plant for a few hours will have negligible effect on emissions. What were they actually trying to achieve?\" He paused for an uncomfortably long time... As if he hadn't asked himself that question before. I wanted to keep things collegial so I suggested perhaps it was to raise awareness. He eagerly accepted my lifeline and agreed it was to 'raise awareness' through the media coverage they gained. Which to be honest was extensive. I didn't make the point to him then. But on later reflection I thought about how these antics are portrayed in the media. Even amongst centre left papers they are not favourable. Ideally, a good protest would cement the views of those on your side. Soften the views of your opponents. And convert some of the undecideds. From conversations I've had, and what I've read online. None of these metrics are being taken into account to measure success. I would in fact venture that this kind of disruptive activism has the adverse effect. It takes people in the middle (the undecideds) and turns them against your cause. Strengthening your opponents arguments... Generally that climate activists are 'anarcho communist whack jobs trying to destroy society'. Hard to argue with when people are chaining themselves to trains. Stopping poor people getting to work and claiming their wages. Or taking up police time while violent crimes are rising in disadvantaged areas. All of which in turn completely distracts from the core message. I concede there are no concrete metrics I can provide on this (I suspect none exist). Only anecdotal ones... But we can look at voting, which in the US placed trump in power for 4 years. And in the UK gave a strong majority to the conservatives. Both of whom actively run on a platform of 'protecting the public from out of control protests', with XR regularly being referenced as an example in the UK. A message that clearly seems to resonate given the follow up success of the conservatives in more recent local elections. Have we not seen enough losses in elections, across the west. To populist and 'bought out' politicians who in some cases flat out deny climate change... To consider the possibility that this kind of disruption does not win hearts and minds. And in fact pushes people away. Into the arms of the populists who promise to keep them safe. Very open to hearing your counter arguments. Please CMV.","c_root_id_A":"ha1y19z","c_root_id_B":"ha220b7","created_at_utc_A":1629738541,"created_at_utc_B":1629740148,"score_A":2,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"> Even amongst centre left papers they are not favourable. \"There is no such thing as bad publicity.\" Scandals get clicks. Outrage gets clicks. Nobody gets hot from thinking about scientific experiments on ozone layer. While you're absolutely right that the outrage groups like that stir might put them in a bad light, that's missing the point \u2013 the point is that they put them in any light, even if it's bad. Many people, initially outraged at the extreme actions of such groups, will be led by their visceral emotions into finding out who they are, what they're doing, and why \u2013 and might be convinced. At least, if they're a reasonable person, there's no chance they'll turn into an anti-environmentalist just because of some extremist environmentalist groups. It's absolutely reasonable to think these groups harm the name of environmentalism. But, even so, they generate massive publicity for a massively important cause.","human_ref_B":"Respectability politics is a sucker's game. There are very few people who actually mean it when they say 'Sure I like their ideas in theory but because they're mean, I actively disagree with everything they do. If they were nicer about it, I might change my mind'. Most people who say that are either A) people who disagree with them and are just looking for a politically justifiable explanation as to why, or B) people who are more concerned with stability and preventing change then they are with anything else, and therefore only support the most gradual of change'. Trying to moderate your actions to appeal to these people just results in you becoming less relevant, at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1607.0,"score_ratio":10.0} {"post_id":"pa3y2d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Environmental movements like Extinction Rebellion do more to harm their cause than help. I'd actively like to be proven wrong here. I think the people behind these movements (including many friends of mine) have their hearts in the right place. And I fully support the cause of combating climate change. It is clear that governments are woefully slow in their response and we are currently hurtling towards disaster. I was speaking to someone at a party recently, who engages in disruptive activism. He had been arrested for gaining access to a power plant and stopping their operations for several hours. I asked him \"since we both know, pausing activities of one plant for a few hours will have negligible effect on emissions. What were they actually trying to achieve?\" He paused for an uncomfortably long time... As if he hadn't asked himself that question before. I wanted to keep things collegial so I suggested perhaps it was to raise awareness. He eagerly accepted my lifeline and agreed it was to 'raise awareness' through the media coverage they gained. Which to be honest was extensive. I didn't make the point to him then. But on later reflection I thought about how these antics are portrayed in the media. Even amongst centre left papers they are not favourable. Ideally, a good protest would cement the views of those on your side. Soften the views of your opponents. And convert some of the undecideds. From conversations I've had, and what I've read online. None of these metrics are being taken into account to measure success. I would in fact venture that this kind of disruptive activism has the adverse effect. It takes people in the middle (the undecideds) and turns them against your cause. Strengthening your opponents arguments... Generally that climate activists are 'anarcho communist whack jobs trying to destroy society'. Hard to argue with when people are chaining themselves to trains. Stopping poor people getting to work and claiming their wages. Or taking up police time while violent crimes are rising in disadvantaged areas. All of which in turn completely distracts from the core message. I concede there are no concrete metrics I can provide on this (I suspect none exist). Only anecdotal ones... But we can look at voting, which in the US placed trump in power for 4 years. And in the UK gave a strong majority to the conservatives. Both of whom actively run on a platform of 'protecting the public from out of control protests', with XR regularly being referenced as an example in the UK. A message that clearly seems to resonate given the follow up success of the conservatives in more recent local elections. Have we not seen enough losses in elections, across the west. To populist and 'bought out' politicians who in some cases flat out deny climate change... To consider the possibility that this kind of disruption does not win hearts and minds. And in fact pushes people away. Into the arms of the populists who promise to keep them safe. Very open to hearing your counter arguments. Please CMV.","c_root_id_A":"ha2017e","c_root_id_B":"ha1y19z","created_at_utc_A":1629739353,"created_at_utc_B":1629738541,"score_A":15,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Ideally, a good protest would cement the views of those on your side. Soften the views of your opponents. And convert some of the undecideds. It seems like you are applying a framework to these groups that doesn't really represent or describe them. A protest would be going to a power plant and demanding it be shut down. Breaking into the power plant to forcibly shut it down isn't a protest, it is sabotage. By the name of this group - Extinction Rebellion - I wouldn't surmise they are a group that limits itself to protesting or does any protesting at all. The word \"rebellion\" implies active measures directed against their target issue. This group isn't here to change hearts and minds, but to address the problem, however marginally they can. Success isn't measured by political change, because they've accepted there won't be any. It is measured by damage done to the fossil fuel economy. Environmental activists have been demanding substantive action through peaceful protest for decades. That most certainly hasn't worked. We're nearing a point where substantive action won't make much of a difference. That means these groups are relegated to unilateral action. People won't pay attention when they protest. They won't pay attention when they block traffic. Maybe they will pay attention when the power goes out. But if they don't, at least we shut down a fossil fuel power plant for a few hours showing that it can be done.","human_ref_B":"> Even amongst centre left papers they are not favourable. \"There is no such thing as bad publicity.\" Scandals get clicks. Outrage gets clicks. Nobody gets hot from thinking about scientific experiments on ozone layer. While you're absolutely right that the outrage groups like that stir might put them in a bad light, that's missing the point \u2013 the point is that they put them in any light, even if it's bad. Many people, initially outraged at the extreme actions of such groups, will be led by their visceral emotions into finding out who they are, what they're doing, and why \u2013 and might be convinced. At least, if they're a reasonable person, there's no chance they'll turn into an anti-environmentalist just because of some extremist environmentalist groups. It's absolutely reasonable to think these groups harm the name of environmentalism. But, even so, they generate massive publicity for a massively important cause.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":812.0,"score_ratio":7.5} {"post_id":"pa3y2d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Environmental movements like Extinction Rebellion do more to harm their cause than help. I'd actively like to be proven wrong here. I think the people behind these movements (including many friends of mine) have their hearts in the right place. And I fully support the cause of combating climate change. It is clear that governments are woefully slow in their response and we are currently hurtling towards disaster. I was speaking to someone at a party recently, who engages in disruptive activism. He had been arrested for gaining access to a power plant and stopping their operations for several hours. I asked him \"since we both know, pausing activities of one plant for a few hours will have negligible effect on emissions. What were they actually trying to achieve?\" He paused for an uncomfortably long time... As if he hadn't asked himself that question before. I wanted to keep things collegial so I suggested perhaps it was to raise awareness. He eagerly accepted my lifeline and agreed it was to 'raise awareness' through the media coverage they gained. Which to be honest was extensive. I didn't make the point to him then. But on later reflection I thought about how these antics are portrayed in the media. Even amongst centre left papers they are not favourable. Ideally, a good protest would cement the views of those on your side. Soften the views of your opponents. And convert some of the undecideds. From conversations I've had, and what I've read online. None of these metrics are being taken into account to measure success. I would in fact venture that this kind of disruptive activism has the adverse effect. It takes people in the middle (the undecideds) and turns them against your cause. Strengthening your opponents arguments... Generally that climate activists are 'anarcho communist whack jobs trying to destroy society'. Hard to argue with when people are chaining themselves to trains. Stopping poor people getting to work and claiming their wages. Or taking up police time while violent crimes are rising in disadvantaged areas. All of which in turn completely distracts from the core message. I concede there are no concrete metrics I can provide on this (I suspect none exist). Only anecdotal ones... But we can look at voting, which in the US placed trump in power for 4 years. And in the UK gave a strong majority to the conservatives. Both of whom actively run on a platform of 'protecting the public from out of control protests', with XR regularly being referenced as an example in the UK. A message that clearly seems to resonate given the follow up success of the conservatives in more recent local elections. Have we not seen enough losses in elections, across the west. To populist and 'bought out' politicians who in some cases flat out deny climate change... To consider the possibility that this kind of disruption does not win hearts and minds. And in fact pushes people away. Into the arms of the populists who promise to keep them safe. Very open to hearing your counter arguments. Please CMV.","c_root_id_A":"ha20m9e","c_root_id_B":"ha1y19z","created_at_utc_A":1629739589,"created_at_utc_B":1629738541,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> I would in fact venture that this kind of disruptive activism has the adverse effect. It takes people in the middle (the undecideds) and turns them against your cause. Everyone aside for a tiny minority is already \"against\" the cause of preventing climate change and other environmental destruction. Some people are against it because they think preserving some facets of the current economy are more important than reducing the risks to the future. Some people are actively spiteful and oppositional to the climate change agenda just to be reactionary. Most people just don't give enough of a shit to make even the smallest of personal sacrifices. The thing is that the apathetic middle's way of being against environmentalism is just as destructive as anyone else's. The situation can barely get worse than it is already, so I see no risk in a few more people being intellectually against being greener when they are already practically against being greener. We have so little to lose on this issue that it's worth taking bigger risks. I would say that maybe the more extreme climate change activists should switch tactics if there was any shred of a speck of a hope that anything other than extremism would be remotely helpful. I don't see an alternative to getting into people's faces and letting them know that the age of being lazy and complacent about climate change is over. Do you see an alternative?","human_ref_B":"> Even amongst centre left papers they are not favourable. \"There is no such thing as bad publicity.\" Scandals get clicks. Outrage gets clicks. Nobody gets hot from thinking about scientific experiments on ozone layer. While you're absolutely right that the outrage groups like that stir might put them in a bad light, that's missing the point \u2013 the point is that they put them in any light, even if it's bad. Many people, initially outraged at the extreme actions of such groups, will be led by their visceral emotions into finding out who they are, what they're doing, and why \u2013 and might be convinced. At least, if they're a reasonable person, there's no chance they'll turn into an anti-environmentalist just because of some extremist environmentalist groups. It's absolutely reasonable to think these groups harm the name of environmentalism. But, even so, they generate massive publicity for a massively important cause.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1048.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"pa3y2d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Environmental movements like Extinction Rebellion do more to harm their cause than help. I'd actively like to be proven wrong here. I think the people behind these movements (including many friends of mine) have their hearts in the right place. And I fully support the cause of combating climate change. It is clear that governments are woefully slow in their response and we are currently hurtling towards disaster. I was speaking to someone at a party recently, who engages in disruptive activism. He had been arrested for gaining access to a power plant and stopping their operations for several hours. I asked him \"since we both know, pausing activities of one plant for a few hours will have negligible effect on emissions. What were they actually trying to achieve?\" He paused for an uncomfortably long time... As if he hadn't asked himself that question before. I wanted to keep things collegial so I suggested perhaps it was to raise awareness. He eagerly accepted my lifeline and agreed it was to 'raise awareness' through the media coverage they gained. Which to be honest was extensive. I didn't make the point to him then. But on later reflection I thought about how these antics are portrayed in the media. Even amongst centre left papers they are not favourable. Ideally, a good protest would cement the views of those on your side. Soften the views of your opponents. And convert some of the undecideds. From conversations I've had, and what I've read online. None of these metrics are being taken into account to measure success. I would in fact venture that this kind of disruptive activism has the adverse effect. It takes people in the middle (the undecideds) and turns them against your cause. Strengthening your opponents arguments... Generally that climate activists are 'anarcho communist whack jobs trying to destroy society'. Hard to argue with when people are chaining themselves to trains. Stopping poor people getting to work and claiming their wages. Or taking up police time while violent crimes are rising in disadvantaged areas. All of which in turn completely distracts from the core message. I concede there are no concrete metrics I can provide on this (I suspect none exist). Only anecdotal ones... But we can look at voting, which in the US placed trump in power for 4 years. And in the UK gave a strong majority to the conservatives. Both of whom actively run on a platform of 'protecting the public from out of control protests', with XR regularly being referenced as an example in the UK. A message that clearly seems to resonate given the follow up success of the conservatives in more recent local elections. Have we not seen enough losses in elections, across the west. To populist and 'bought out' politicians who in some cases flat out deny climate change... To consider the possibility that this kind of disruption does not win hearts and minds. And in fact pushes people away. Into the arms of the populists who promise to keep them safe. Very open to hearing your counter arguments. Please CMV.","c_root_id_A":"ha344v8","c_root_id_B":"ha1y19z","created_at_utc_A":1629755801,"created_at_utc_B":1629738541,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Acts of protest can do multiple things and have different aims. There are large parts of the climate movement that do positive actions and education. It\u2019s what most people want to put their efforts into and ultimately, I agree it does a better job of getting buy-in. I would say that what XR is doing is sabotage. More akin to resistance movements in occupied countries. The idea isn\u2019t to win public support but to create more friction for the enemy. If you have to worry about sabotage, everything gets more expensive and laborious. Even if sabotage isn\u2019t that effective, you still need to devote resources to minimizing risk. Overtime this saps the resources of your enemy and makes them more vulnerable. In occupied Yugoslavia, the partisan movement was able to tie down 100,000\u2019s of nazi troops. In this case, it\u2019s effect is raising the cost of polluting industries because of the risks of sabotage. How can you plan to build a new oil pipeline when people keep attacking the existing pipeline? The game being played here is to delay, disrupt, and disparage fossil fuel production. It puts pressure directly on the company that\u2019s profiting from fossil fuels. It makes them afraid of future attacks. It makes their development plans slower and more riskier as an investment. It could also be more devastating. There is a future in which a major climate disaster radicalizes a group of people into more extreme action. A main natural gas pipeline blew up in BC a few years ago. It was caused by poor maintenance and not sabotage. But most of the province and potentially the American northwest almost ran out of natural gas. There were massive curtailments required to keep the system running. What if someone set up an IED in the same place? That wouldn\u2019t be an inconsequential disruption.","human_ref_B":"> Even amongst centre left papers they are not favourable. \"There is no such thing as bad publicity.\" Scandals get clicks. Outrage gets clicks. Nobody gets hot from thinking about scientific experiments on ozone layer. While you're absolutely right that the outrage groups like that stir might put them in a bad light, that's missing the point \u2013 the point is that they put them in any light, even if it's bad. Many people, initially outraged at the extreme actions of such groups, will be led by their visceral emotions into finding out who they are, what they're doing, and why \u2013 and might be convinced. At least, if they're a reasonable person, there's no chance they'll turn into an anti-environmentalist just because of some extremist environmentalist groups. It's absolutely reasonable to think these groups harm the name of environmentalism. But, even so, they generate massive publicity for a massively important cause.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17260.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1va5vl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"I think we should combine feminism and men's rights movement into one, CMV So, where I'm from the feminist movement is not in favor of females, but is fighting for equal rights for both sexes. They do fight strongly for women but I don't feel left out. I'm really proud of it to include rights for men as well as women. International feminism is defined as \"the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.\" according to Google definitions. The feminist movement overshadows men's rights movement and each factions tend to get bad reputations every now and then. Why can't we just have one to rule them all?","c_root_id_A":"ceq82t5","c_root_id_B":"ceq82ev","created_at_utc_A":1389804456,"created_at_utc_B":1389804433,"score_A":80,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"People who fight against racism are also for equal rights between all people. People who fight against discrimination against the disabled are also for equal rights between all people. People who fight for gay rights are also for equal rights between all people. By your reasoning, all these people should be combined into one movement. The problem is that women face different forms of discrimination than men. Black people face different forms of discrimination than the disabled. Gay people face different forms of discrimination than he elderly. In theory they may be all fighting for the same thing but in practice they all have different concerns. So it makes sense that they form separate groups.","human_ref_B":"The problem is that much of the equality that feminism claims to fight for, in the eyes of many men (and some women) is really a whitewashing of some rather disturbing trends. They claim to be for equality, but focus on homelessness as a female problem (it disproportionately affects men). They claim to be for equality, but focus on domestic violence as an exclusively female issue (it effects both genders roughly equally). Look at the difference in funding and legal language for female victims of Domestic Abuse versus male victims. Look at the difference in funding for breast versus prostate cancer. Which leads one to a simple conclusion: they fight against instances of perceived male superiority and better treatment, but leave alone instances of better female treatment. They don't spend time fighting *against* the 80-20 split in custody after divorce. They claim to have bigger fish to fry, but it always seems like the \"big\" problems are always \"women are disadvantaged\" and any instances of male disadvantage are considered unimportant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23.0,"score_ratio":26.6666666667} {"post_id":"1va5vl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"I think we should combine feminism and men's rights movement into one, CMV So, where I'm from the feminist movement is not in favor of females, but is fighting for equal rights for both sexes. They do fight strongly for women but I don't feel left out. I'm really proud of it to include rights for men as well as women. International feminism is defined as \"the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.\" according to Google definitions. The feminist movement overshadows men's rights movement and each factions tend to get bad reputations every now and then. Why can't we just have one to rule them all?","c_root_id_A":"ceq82t5","c_root_id_B":"ceq7ykw","created_at_utc_A":1389804456,"created_at_utc_B":1389804206,"score_A":80,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"People who fight against racism are also for equal rights between all people. People who fight against discrimination against the disabled are also for equal rights between all people. People who fight for gay rights are also for equal rights between all people. By your reasoning, all these people should be combined into one movement. The problem is that women face different forms of discrimination than men. Black people face different forms of discrimination than the disabled. Gay people face different forms of discrimination than he elderly. In theory they may be all fighting for the same thing but in practice they all have different concerns. So it makes sense that they form separate groups.","human_ref_B":"This comment was overwritten with a script for privacy reasons. Overwritten on 2017-09-20.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":250.0,"score_ratio":40.0} {"post_id":"1va5vl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"I think we should combine feminism and men's rights movement into one, CMV So, where I'm from the feminist movement is not in favor of females, but is fighting for equal rights for both sexes. They do fight strongly for women but I don't feel left out. I'm really proud of it to include rights for men as well as women. International feminism is defined as \"the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.\" according to Google definitions. The feminist movement overshadows men's rights movement and each factions tend to get bad reputations every now and then. Why can't we just have one to rule them all?","c_root_id_A":"ceqt246","c_root_id_B":"ceq82ev","created_at_utc_A":1389848250,"created_at_utc_B":1389804433,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"it already exists, and is called \/r\/egalitarian","human_ref_B":"The problem is that much of the equality that feminism claims to fight for, in the eyes of many men (and some women) is really a whitewashing of some rather disturbing trends. They claim to be for equality, but focus on homelessness as a female problem (it disproportionately affects men). They claim to be for equality, but focus on domestic violence as an exclusively female issue (it effects both genders roughly equally). Look at the difference in funding and legal language for female victims of Domestic Abuse versus male victims. Look at the difference in funding for breast versus prostate cancer. Which leads one to a simple conclusion: they fight against instances of perceived male superiority and better treatment, but leave alone instances of better female treatment. They don't spend time fighting *against* the 80-20 split in custody after divorce. They claim to have bigger fish to fry, but it always seems like the \"big\" problems are always \"women are disadvantaged\" and any instances of male disadvantage are considered unimportant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":43817.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"1va5vl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"I think we should combine feminism and men's rights movement into one, CMV So, where I'm from the feminist movement is not in favor of females, but is fighting for equal rights for both sexes. They do fight strongly for women but I don't feel left out. I'm really proud of it to include rights for men as well as women. International feminism is defined as \"the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.\" according to Google definitions. The feminist movement overshadows men's rights movement and each factions tend to get bad reputations every now and then. Why can't we just have one to rule them all?","c_root_id_A":"ceqt246","c_root_id_B":"ceq7ykw","created_at_utc_A":1389848250,"created_at_utc_B":1389804206,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"it already exists, and is called \/r\/egalitarian","human_ref_B":"This comment was overwritten with a script for privacy reasons. Overwritten on 2017-09-20.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":44044.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1va5vl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"I think we should combine feminism and men's rights movement into one, CMV So, where I'm from the feminist movement is not in favor of females, but is fighting for equal rights for both sexes. They do fight strongly for women but I don't feel left out. I'm really proud of it to include rights for men as well as women. International feminism is defined as \"the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.\" according to Google definitions. The feminist movement overshadows men's rights movement and each factions tend to get bad reputations every now and then. Why can't we just have one to rule them all?","c_root_id_A":"ceqt246","c_root_id_B":"ceqc3ox","created_at_utc_A":1389848250,"created_at_utc_B":1389812960,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"it already exists, and is called \/r\/egalitarian","human_ref_B":"I think we have to understand that the MRM and Feminism are just umbrella terms to give a general opinion of people's views. If someone is a feminist, they don't believe in *all* feminist views. They are just someone whose most views can be represented by the movement which encompasses similar people's views. There are many splinters of feminists who form their own groups because they differ on how things should be handled. This applies to the MRM too. AvFM will have certain views on certain issues, yet another MRA may agree with only some of those views. They're both part of the MRM movement though. You can't just join two movements together. There are two movements because the people under the umbrella of that movement have very different views on how situations should be handled and how we should do it. Feminism fights for \"equality between sexes\" MRM fights for \"equality between sexes\" yet both fight for different values and in different ways. Two people can be for the equality of sexes yet not agree with each other on a certain issue. People can fight for equality yet identify with neither movement simply because their view of equality is different or they don't feel the association with the general principles, groups or actions of that movement. The only way you can 'combine' them, is to simply call them the same name, but all that will do is have people not identify with that definition since there will be so much internal friction under that movement and they'll simply call themselves something different. A feminist and an MRA is simply a label they have given themselves to give a representation on how they view things. The views each typical person has under each movement simply isn't similar enough for them to want to be identified under the other movement.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":35290.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1va5vl","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"I think we should combine feminism and men's rights movement into one, CMV So, where I'm from the feminist movement is not in favor of females, but is fighting for equal rights for both sexes. They do fight strongly for women but I don't feel left out. I'm really proud of it to include rights for men as well as women. International feminism is defined as \"the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.\" according to Google definitions. The feminist movement overshadows men's rights movement and each factions tend to get bad reputations every now and then. Why can't we just have one to rule them all?","c_root_id_A":"ceq7ykw","c_root_id_B":"ceq82ev","created_at_utc_A":1389804206,"created_at_utc_B":1389804433,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This comment was overwritten with a script for privacy reasons. Overwritten on 2017-09-20.","human_ref_B":"The problem is that much of the equality that feminism claims to fight for, in the eyes of many men (and some women) is really a whitewashing of some rather disturbing trends. They claim to be for equality, but focus on homelessness as a female problem (it disproportionately affects men). They claim to be for equality, but focus on domestic violence as an exclusively female issue (it effects both genders roughly equally). Look at the difference in funding and legal language for female victims of Domestic Abuse versus male victims. Look at the difference in funding for breast versus prostate cancer. Which leads one to a simple conclusion: they fight against instances of perceived male superiority and better treatment, but leave alone instances of better female treatment. They don't spend time fighting *against* the 80-20 split in custody after divorce. They claim to have bigger fish to fry, but it always seems like the \"big\" problems are always \"women are disadvantaged\" and any instances of male disadvantage are considered unimportant.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":227.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"6t8gq2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Basic universal income will soon be inevitable due to automation. My argument is quite simple. Due to the increasingly smart AI, many low and mid-tier jobs will be replaced within the century. This will lead to massive unemployment. A country with mass unemployment will have a very stagnating economy, for people won't have money to spend, which will result in closing factories, leading to more unemployment etc. This can be relieved by providing people with a basic universal income on top of their salaries, so they will have money to spend on products, keeping the economy afloat. An automated factory requires fewer and smarter(\/better educated) workers. I remember an article (I can't find it) about a self-driving car that had made a strange decision all by itself. Due to the stunning complexity of the AI, the programmers were unable to retrace how the car came to that decision. This goes to show that complex AI requires big brains to operate them. People with low education will not be able to take on those jobs, resulting in unemployment. I'm not arguing the ethical implications of basic universal income, I just don't see an alternative.","c_root_id_A":"dliq58b","c_root_id_B":"dlioqz4","created_at_utc_A":1502547929,"created_at_utc_B":1502545696,"score_A":26,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So there's a couple of problems with your argument, and I want to address them separately: 'soon', and 'automation will replace jobs'. First of all 'soon'. I know the AI enthusiasts see the robotic revolution just around the corner. It isn't. The kind of AI that is winning Go, for example, is highly specialized. It's a bigger leap than we thought we'd see for some time, but it's still a specifically built computer system for one task. IBM's Watson is used for medicine, but it doesn't make diagnoses - the Mayo Clinic, for example, uses theirs for one task - matching patients with clinical trials they are candidates for. In fact, overall productivity growth (which is what technological advancements in industry are) is actually *slower* than it has been in years past. What this probably means is the low hanging fruit of automation is already past us, and we're going to have to work harder for the same efficiency gains. If you're imagining a post-scarcity world where automation is capable of all human labor in your lifetime, you're too optimistic by orders of magnitude. So now we move on to the fundamental idea that automation means 'replacing jobs'. It doesn't. This is a common misconception, so common in fact that it has a name: the Lump of Labor fallacy. In the Lump of Labor fallacy, there's a fixed amount of labor to be done in an economy. If one actor (a worker, immigrant, robot, whatever) does it, it means someone else can't. So people say that 'immigrants are taking our jobs', or that robots will replace all workers. But economies don't work like that. Immigrants are consumers as wells as workers, and they grow the economy when they participate in it. Automation increases productivity, which increases the amount of stuff we make, without 'taking jobs', because those humans who did what the automation did now do something else. So the printing press put scribes out of work, but did not mean that the people who were scribes had no productive use for their labor. Tractors did the same with farmhands, freeing them up for more productive things. The same will happen with AI. Technology doesn't *replace* labor, it *augments* it. You see a tractor reducing the number of fieldhands from 100 to 1, and you see 99 jobs replaced, but really what you see is a tool allowing 1 person to be 100x as productive. A self driving tractor replaces that 1 driver, but what it really does is let a farm manager be more productive, and free that driver up for more productive labor. Look at how AI is actually being used: the Mayo Clinic doesn't replace doctors with Watson, it gives doctors another tool that makes them more productive. Yes, as productivity increases, it will make the cost of providing basic necessities to people cheaper and cheaper, and makes a basic income simpler and simpler to provide, but you've got the causality backwards. We don't need a basic income because automation will drive people to starvation without it; automation will make providing a basic income to everyone possible.","human_ref_B":"Basic Universal Income is actually one of the least radical solutions to the problem of automation. We could, for example, nationalize all industry and give people shares in the National Automated Labor Corporation and pay them that way. Of course that's not that radical as it still uses money to distribute resources. With enough automation and renewable energy we could just go to a everything-is-free model for consumer goods. We'd need a different system for housing, maybe a lottery. For a weirder alternative, read Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. In that novel, what ever few rare things are left are all distributed on a system reminiscent of Reddit Karma. On the other side of the spectrum, you could just kill all the people who don't own capital. Really UBI is mostly a scheme to keep others alive while maintaining the power of the capitalist class.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2233.0,"score_ratio":8.6666666667} {"post_id":"6t8gq2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Basic universal income will soon be inevitable due to automation. My argument is quite simple. Due to the increasingly smart AI, many low and mid-tier jobs will be replaced within the century. This will lead to massive unemployment. A country with mass unemployment will have a very stagnating economy, for people won't have money to spend, which will result in closing factories, leading to more unemployment etc. This can be relieved by providing people with a basic universal income on top of their salaries, so they will have money to spend on products, keeping the economy afloat. An automated factory requires fewer and smarter(\/better educated) workers. I remember an article (I can't find it) about a self-driving car that had made a strange decision all by itself. Due to the stunning complexity of the AI, the programmers were unable to retrace how the car came to that decision. This goes to show that complex AI requires big brains to operate them. People with low education will not be able to take on those jobs, resulting in unemployment. I'm not arguing the ethical implications of basic universal income, I just don't see an alternative.","c_root_id_A":"dlj6ag7","c_root_id_B":"dlioqz4","created_at_utc_A":1502569302,"created_at_utc_B":1502545696,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So, I'm late to the party, but let me give you the broadly accepted criticisms of UBI that are known in Academia. Universal Basic Income is neither basic nor universal. It works only in closed systems administered by a central government that commands total economic authority empowered by a population that blindly trusts them in all things. Suppose that we were to have, say, Canada pass a UBI, but not the United States. You would expect a lot of Americans to start to cross the border seeking a UBI, but you would also expect wealthier Canadians to do the same in reverse, travelling to an area of substantially lower taxation in the United States. The United States experiences an economic boom from this - the poorest citizens are leaving, wages go up for those left behind, new wealth it moving into the country, and the costs of government go down. Similarly, Canada will experience an exodus of the upper and upper middle classes, sharp declines in tax revenue, and increasing costs of government, as well as an economic recession. This can only partly be mitigated with powerful anti-immigration methods because that doesn't prevent the movement of businesses and the wealthy out of an area. Now, it is true that Americans pay much less tax right now than Canadians (and most of the western world), and that the brain drain to the United States is manageable right now, but it still exists. If that difference were to widen, it would negatively impact the areas where UBI is first implemented most strongly. This creates a race to the bottom - every nation wants to be the last to raise taxes, and whoever offers the lowest UBI will pull ahead in that race. We live in a global economy. Nothing is universal unless every nation on earth signs off on an identical law. But if all of the engineering is done in America, who pays the UBI in Uganda? Unless it is a global human basic income, it's not universal, but a white bloodline basic income, an income that applies only to those humans fortunate enough to have the legal authority to command industries to support them because of accidents of birth. And if you're a Briton who has never and will never work in British industry, should you really have more of a right to that lifestyle than someone elsewhere? Then, there is a question of what's basic. If we've accepted that, say, 70% of our population will never work, and that the only jobs are for people who are well-educated in computer science and robotics, or are enormously charismatic, do we continue to finance public education, and if so, to what degree? It would be enormously expensive to give every person a shot at one of those jobs when the children of those currently working them could easily afford private education and supply market needs. What about health care? What should the health care expenditures from the government be for those who are a permanent net drain on society? And don't just say it'll be up to individuals how much to spend, because the government will need to set an actual paycheck for everybody, and that calculation will include quality of life. So, we'll have a voter base who vote for their own paychecks, and an elite who will move and follow the lowest tax rates, and populations that are permanently enserfed to a geographic area, with no capacity to improve that lifestyle, and the routine collapse of nations that vote for a UBI that they can't afford, driving migratory industries to newer markets. It's a race to the bottom that necessarily ends with UBI collapsing. If a UBI is necessary, then a species-wide government is necessary. Many of these problems fall away if income is truly universal. But that still leaves a difficult position, where the debate in government overwhelmingly becomes about whether taxes need to be cut at the expense of the people to spur long-term growth, and frankly, at our social level, we're incapable of having that conversation coherently. You probably already have an opinion on it without any details at all about what that lifestyle is or what the needs of expansion even are. The level of control that is eventually required is staggering. I agree that we need some sort of solution as automation proceeds and the bulk of the workforce becomes obsolete. I don't know what that solution is. But to be stable, a UBI would require such radical shifts in government and society that in a lasting capacity I'm just not sure it can really exist.","human_ref_B":"Basic Universal Income is actually one of the least radical solutions to the problem of automation. We could, for example, nationalize all industry and give people shares in the National Automated Labor Corporation and pay them that way. Of course that's not that radical as it still uses money to distribute resources. With enough automation and renewable energy we could just go to a everything-is-free model for consumer goods. We'd need a different system for housing, maybe a lottery. For a weirder alternative, read Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. In that novel, what ever few rare things are left are all distributed on a system reminiscent of Reddit Karma. On the other side of the spectrum, you could just kill all the people who don't own capital. Really UBI is mostly a scheme to keep others alive while maintaining the power of the capitalist class.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23606.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"6t8gq2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Basic universal income will soon be inevitable due to automation. My argument is quite simple. Due to the increasingly smart AI, many low and mid-tier jobs will be replaced within the century. This will lead to massive unemployment. A country with mass unemployment will have a very stagnating economy, for people won't have money to spend, which will result in closing factories, leading to more unemployment etc. This can be relieved by providing people with a basic universal income on top of their salaries, so they will have money to spend on products, keeping the economy afloat. An automated factory requires fewer and smarter(\/better educated) workers. I remember an article (I can't find it) about a self-driving car that had made a strange decision all by itself. Due to the stunning complexity of the AI, the programmers were unable to retrace how the car came to that decision. This goes to show that complex AI requires big brains to operate them. People with low education will not be able to take on those jobs, resulting in unemployment. I'm not arguing the ethical implications of basic universal income, I just don't see an alternative.","c_root_id_A":"dlj6ag7","c_root_id_B":"dlir6j8","created_at_utc_A":1502569302,"created_at_utc_B":1502549415,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So, I'm late to the party, but let me give you the broadly accepted criticisms of UBI that are known in Academia. Universal Basic Income is neither basic nor universal. It works only in closed systems administered by a central government that commands total economic authority empowered by a population that blindly trusts them in all things. Suppose that we were to have, say, Canada pass a UBI, but not the United States. You would expect a lot of Americans to start to cross the border seeking a UBI, but you would also expect wealthier Canadians to do the same in reverse, travelling to an area of substantially lower taxation in the United States. The United States experiences an economic boom from this - the poorest citizens are leaving, wages go up for those left behind, new wealth it moving into the country, and the costs of government go down. Similarly, Canada will experience an exodus of the upper and upper middle classes, sharp declines in tax revenue, and increasing costs of government, as well as an economic recession. This can only partly be mitigated with powerful anti-immigration methods because that doesn't prevent the movement of businesses and the wealthy out of an area. Now, it is true that Americans pay much less tax right now than Canadians (and most of the western world), and that the brain drain to the United States is manageable right now, but it still exists. If that difference were to widen, it would negatively impact the areas where UBI is first implemented most strongly. This creates a race to the bottom - every nation wants to be the last to raise taxes, and whoever offers the lowest UBI will pull ahead in that race. We live in a global economy. Nothing is universal unless every nation on earth signs off on an identical law. But if all of the engineering is done in America, who pays the UBI in Uganda? Unless it is a global human basic income, it's not universal, but a white bloodline basic income, an income that applies only to those humans fortunate enough to have the legal authority to command industries to support them because of accidents of birth. And if you're a Briton who has never and will never work in British industry, should you really have more of a right to that lifestyle than someone elsewhere? Then, there is a question of what's basic. If we've accepted that, say, 70% of our population will never work, and that the only jobs are for people who are well-educated in computer science and robotics, or are enormously charismatic, do we continue to finance public education, and if so, to what degree? It would be enormously expensive to give every person a shot at one of those jobs when the children of those currently working them could easily afford private education and supply market needs. What about health care? What should the health care expenditures from the government be for those who are a permanent net drain on society? And don't just say it'll be up to individuals how much to spend, because the government will need to set an actual paycheck for everybody, and that calculation will include quality of life. So, we'll have a voter base who vote for their own paychecks, and an elite who will move and follow the lowest tax rates, and populations that are permanently enserfed to a geographic area, with no capacity to improve that lifestyle, and the routine collapse of nations that vote for a UBI that they can't afford, driving migratory industries to newer markets. It's a race to the bottom that necessarily ends with UBI collapsing. If a UBI is necessary, then a species-wide government is necessary. Many of these problems fall away if income is truly universal. But that still leaves a difficult position, where the debate in government overwhelmingly becomes about whether taxes need to be cut at the expense of the people to spur long-term growth, and frankly, at our social level, we're incapable of having that conversation coherently. You probably already have an opinion on it without any details at all about what that lifestyle is or what the needs of expansion even are. The level of control that is eventually required is staggering. I agree that we need some sort of solution as automation proceeds and the bulk of the workforce becomes obsolete. I don't know what that solution is. But to be stable, a UBI would require such radical shifts in government and society that in a lasting capacity I'm just not sure it can really exist.","human_ref_B":"It's definitely true that some major change to our economic system to avoid a dystopian collapse in the face of automation. However, UBI is not the only possible change (even if it might be the most likely), which means it's not inevitable. We could drastically reduce working hours, creating a 5-hour workweek for everyone (paying the same amount as now), with everything else done by automation. We could transition into some form of strong socialism, where the government guarantees a basic standard of living to every citizen, but not through UBI because there's no private economy or 'income'. And, of course, we could just have a dystopian collapse due to failing to adapt to the changes brought by automation, or alternately from nuclear war or global warming or some other catastrophe. I would tend to agree that UBI is a fairly likely future development, but it's not *inevitable* since any of these alternatives are possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19887.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"6t8gq2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Basic universal income will soon be inevitable due to automation. My argument is quite simple. Due to the increasingly smart AI, many low and mid-tier jobs will be replaced within the century. This will lead to massive unemployment. A country with mass unemployment will have a very stagnating economy, for people won't have money to spend, which will result in closing factories, leading to more unemployment etc. This can be relieved by providing people with a basic universal income on top of their salaries, so they will have money to spend on products, keeping the economy afloat. An automated factory requires fewer and smarter(\/better educated) workers. I remember an article (I can't find it) about a self-driving car that had made a strange decision all by itself. Due to the stunning complexity of the AI, the programmers were unable to retrace how the car came to that decision. This goes to show that complex AI requires big brains to operate them. People with low education will not be able to take on those jobs, resulting in unemployment. I'm not arguing the ethical implications of basic universal income, I just don't see an alternative.","c_root_id_A":"dlj6ag7","c_root_id_B":"dlix2fx","created_at_utc_A":1502569302,"created_at_utc_B":1502557143,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So, I'm late to the party, but let me give you the broadly accepted criticisms of UBI that are known in Academia. Universal Basic Income is neither basic nor universal. It works only in closed systems administered by a central government that commands total economic authority empowered by a population that blindly trusts them in all things. Suppose that we were to have, say, Canada pass a UBI, but not the United States. You would expect a lot of Americans to start to cross the border seeking a UBI, but you would also expect wealthier Canadians to do the same in reverse, travelling to an area of substantially lower taxation in the United States. The United States experiences an economic boom from this - the poorest citizens are leaving, wages go up for those left behind, new wealth it moving into the country, and the costs of government go down. Similarly, Canada will experience an exodus of the upper and upper middle classes, sharp declines in tax revenue, and increasing costs of government, as well as an economic recession. This can only partly be mitigated with powerful anti-immigration methods because that doesn't prevent the movement of businesses and the wealthy out of an area. Now, it is true that Americans pay much less tax right now than Canadians (and most of the western world), and that the brain drain to the United States is manageable right now, but it still exists. If that difference were to widen, it would negatively impact the areas where UBI is first implemented most strongly. This creates a race to the bottom - every nation wants to be the last to raise taxes, and whoever offers the lowest UBI will pull ahead in that race. We live in a global economy. Nothing is universal unless every nation on earth signs off on an identical law. But if all of the engineering is done in America, who pays the UBI in Uganda? Unless it is a global human basic income, it's not universal, but a white bloodline basic income, an income that applies only to those humans fortunate enough to have the legal authority to command industries to support them because of accidents of birth. And if you're a Briton who has never and will never work in British industry, should you really have more of a right to that lifestyle than someone elsewhere? Then, there is a question of what's basic. If we've accepted that, say, 70% of our population will never work, and that the only jobs are for people who are well-educated in computer science and robotics, or are enormously charismatic, do we continue to finance public education, and if so, to what degree? It would be enormously expensive to give every person a shot at one of those jobs when the children of those currently working them could easily afford private education and supply market needs. What about health care? What should the health care expenditures from the government be for those who are a permanent net drain on society? And don't just say it'll be up to individuals how much to spend, because the government will need to set an actual paycheck for everybody, and that calculation will include quality of life. So, we'll have a voter base who vote for their own paychecks, and an elite who will move and follow the lowest tax rates, and populations that are permanently enserfed to a geographic area, with no capacity to improve that lifestyle, and the routine collapse of nations that vote for a UBI that they can't afford, driving migratory industries to newer markets. It's a race to the bottom that necessarily ends with UBI collapsing. If a UBI is necessary, then a species-wide government is necessary. Many of these problems fall away if income is truly universal. But that still leaves a difficult position, where the debate in government overwhelmingly becomes about whether taxes need to be cut at the expense of the people to spur long-term growth, and frankly, at our social level, we're incapable of having that conversation coherently. You probably already have an opinion on it without any details at all about what that lifestyle is or what the needs of expansion even are. The level of control that is eventually required is staggering. I agree that we need some sort of solution as automation proceeds and the bulk of the workforce becomes obsolete. I don't know what that solution is. But to be stable, a UBI would require such radical shifts in government and society that in a lasting capacity I'm just not sure it can really exist.","human_ref_B":"Universal income already exists in some way. We pay taxes, and those taxes are used to build up and service people who need it. The main issue is that these services need to be expanded and aren't. Healthcare is an example of redistributing wealth. UBI works when you take away these structures and allow people access to a broad, open market with some regulation in place, but it's just half a dozen to another. One thing that won't go away is what Michio Kaku calls \"intellectual capitalism\" - creative services. Music, literature, art, and other jobs that machines cannot do and probably won't do for a long, long time. Machines can process numbers like no human can but humans process things differently. A person reaching into water and understanding how to move every little muscle and interpret things is beyond what even a supercomputer can do. That's AI, not even automation, so automation certainly won't affect fields like education and science.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12159.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"6t8gq2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Basic universal income will soon be inevitable due to automation. My argument is quite simple. Due to the increasingly smart AI, many low and mid-tier jobs will be replaced within the century. This will lead to massive unemployment. A country with mass unemployment will have a very stagnating economy, for people won't have money to spend, which will result in closing factories, leading to more unemployment etc. This can be relieved by providing people with a basic universal income on top of their salaries, so they will have money to spend on products, keeping the economy afloat. An automated factory requires fewer and smarter(\/better educated) workers. I remember an article (I can't find it) about a self-driving car that had made a strange decision all by itself. Due to the stunning complexity of the AI, the programmers were unable to retrace how the car came to that decision. This goes to show that complex AI requires big brains to operate them. People with low education will not be able to take on those jobs, resulting in unemployment. I'm not arguing the ethical implications of basic universal income, I just don't see an alternative.","c_root_id_A":"dlj6ag7","c_root_id_B":"dlj5llk","created_at_utc_A":1502569302,"created_at_utc_B":1502568403,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So, I'm late to the party, but let me give you the broadly accepted criticisms of UBI that are known in Academia. Universal Basic Income is neither basic nor universal. It works only in closed systems administered by a central government that commands total economic authority empowered by a population that blindly trusts them in all things. Suppose that we were to have, say, Canada pass a UBI, but not the United States. You would expect a lot of Americans to start to cross the border seeking a UBI, but you would also expect wealthier Canadians to do the same in reverse, travelling to an area of substantially lower taxation in the United States. The United States experiences an economic boom from this - the poorest citizens are leaving, wages go up for those left behind, new wealth it moving into the country, and the costs of government go down. Similarly, Canada will experience an exodus of the upper and upper middle classes, sharp declines in tax revenue, and increasing costs of government, as well as an economic recession. This can only partly be mitigated with powerful anti-immigration methods because that doesn't prevent the movement of businesses and the wealthy out of an area. Now, it is true that Americans pay much less tax right now than Canadians (and most of the western world), and that the brain drain to the United States is manageable right now, but it still exists. If that difference were to widen, it would negatively impact the areas where UBI is first implemented most strongly. This creates a race to the bottom - every nation wants to be the last to raise taxes, and whoever offers the lowest UBI will pull ahead in that race. We live in a global economy. Nothing is universal unless every nation on earth signs off on an identical law. But if all of the engineering is done in America, who pays the UBI in Uganda? Unless it is a global human basic income, it's not universal, but a white bloodline basic income, an income that applies only to those humans fortunate enough to have the legal authority to command industries to support them because of accidents of birth. And if you're a Briton who has never and will never work in British industry, should you really have more of a right to that lifestyle than someone elsewhere? Then, there is a question of what's basic. If we've accepted that, say, 70% of our population will never work, and that the only jobs are for people who are well-educated in computer science and robotics, or are enormously charismatic, do we continue to finance public education, and if so, to what degree? It would be enormously expensive to give every person a shot at one of those jobs when the children of those currently working them could easily afford private education and supply market needs. What about health care? What should the health care expenditures from the government be for those who are a permanent net drain on society? And don't just say it'll be up to individuals how much to spend, because the government will need to set an actual paycheck for everybody, and that calculation will include quality of life. So, we'll have a voter base who vote for their own paychecks, and an elite who will move and follow the lowest tax rates, and populations that are permanently enserfed to a geographic area, with no capacity to improve that lifestyle, and the routine collapse of nations that vote for a UBI that they can't afford, driving migratory industries to newer markets. It's a race to the bottom that necessarily ends with UBI collapsing. If a UBI is necessary, then a species-wide government is necessary. Many of these problems fall away if income is truly universal. But that still leaves a difficult position, where the debate in government overwhelmingly becomes about whether taxes need to be cut at the expense of the people to spur long-term growth, and frankly, at our social level, we're incapable of having that conversation coherently. You probably already have an opinion on it without any details at all about what that lifestyle is or what the needs of expansion even are. The level of control that is eventually required is staggering. I agree that we need some sort of solution as automation proceeds and the bulk of the workforce becomes obsolete. I don't know what that solution is. But to be stable, a UBI would require such radical shifts in government and society that in a lasting capacity I'm just not sure it can really exist.","human_ref_B":"Economics student here. You sound a lot like Karl Marx. Marx said that automation would result in unemployment and overproduction, leading capitalism to an inevitable crisis. Using the same logic you used: >Due to the increasingly smart AI, many low and mid-tier jobs will be replaced within the century. This will lead to massive unemployment. A country with mass unemployment will have a very stagnating economy, for people won't have money to spend, which will result in closing factories, leading to more unemployment etc. The truth is that automation does create unemployment in the short run, but it also creates new jobs in the long run. When a company replaces their workers with machines, they create unemployment, but also increase their productivity, allowing them to produce more stuff. If they produce more stuff, they are forced to lower their prices, otherwise people wouldn't buy more (since the price would remain the same) and they would overproduce. At the same time, other companies are also automating and risking taking their market share through lower prices. So they are forced to automate and lower their prices. The lower prices increase real income for consumers. They now have more money to spend. That raises Consumption. So even though computers don't consume, they allow people to consume more by raising productivity. That increase in Consumption, creates new jobs in other sectors of the economy. (Employment is driven by Aggregate Demand, in which Consumption is the main driving factor). So as long there are jobs that only humans can do, there will be jobs for everyone. We can see multiple examples of this in history. The reason why jobs in the service sector had risen so much, is because the farming and manufacturing sector have been automated for a long time. It makes sense to believe new jobs can't be created, since there isn't enough demand for jobs in those other areas. The thing is, the new higher productivity raises consumption, thus raising the demand for those jobs.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":899.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"6t8gq2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Basic universal income will soon be inevitable due to automation. My argument is quite simple. Due to the increasingly smart AI, many low and mid-tier jobs will be replaced within the century. This will lead to massive unemployment. A country with mass unemployment will have a very stagnating economy, for people won't have money to spend, which will result in closing factories, leading to more unemployment etc. This can be relieved by providing people with a basic universal income on top of their salaries, so they will have money to spend on products, keeping the economy afloat. An automated factory requires fewer and smarter(\/better educated) workers. I remember an article (I can't find it) about a self-driving car that had made a strange decision all by itself. Due to the stunning complexity of the AI, the programmers were unable to retrace how the car came to that decision. This goes to show that complex AI requires big brains to operate them. People with low education will not be able to take on those jobs, resulting in unemployment. I'm not arguing the ethical implications of basic universal income, I just don't see an alternative.","c_root_id_A":"dlj5llk","c_root_id_B":"dljbrpq","created_at_utc_A":1502568403,"created_at_utc_B":1502576300,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Economics student here. You sound a lot like Karl Marx. Marx said that automation would result in unemployment and overproduction, leading capitalism to an inevitable crisis. Using the same logic you used: >Due to the increasingly smart AI, many low and mid-tier jobs will be replaced within the century. This will lead to massive unemployment. A country with mass unemployment will have a very stagnating economy, for people won't have money to spend, which will result in closing factories, leading to more unemployment etc. The truth is that automation does create unemployment in the short run, but it also creates new jobs in the long run. When a company replaces their workers with machines, they create unemployment, but also increase their productivity, allowing them to produce more stuff. If they produce more stuff, they are forced to lower their prices, otherwise people wouldn't buy more (since the price would remain the same) and they would overproduce. At the same time, other companies are also automating and risking taking their market share through lower prices. So they are forced to automate and lower their prices. The lower prices increase real income for consumers. They now have more money to spend. That raises Consumption. So even though computers don't consume, they allow people to consume more by raising productivity. That increase in Consumption, creates new jobs in other sectors of the economy. (Employment is driven by Aggregate Demand, in which Consumption is the main driving factor). So as long there are jobs that only humans can do, there will be jobs for everyone. We can see multiple examples of this in history. The reason why jobs in the service sector had risen so much, is because the farming and manufacturing sector have been automated for a long time. It makes sense to believe new jobs can't be created, since there isn't enough demand for jobs in those other areas. The thing is, the new higher productivity raises consumption, thus raising the demand for those jobs.","human_ref_B":"Since 1800 the rate of job creation has at least matched that of job destruction. - this can be readily seen as we don't have 95% unemployment. So this argument has been made before. Now I'm not saying you're wrong. But what I will say is: ->everyone who's ever made the claim \"Increasing automation will result in catastrophic mass unemployment\" has been wrong. Furthermore, everyone who defended it with \"yeah but this time it's different because the rate of losses is so great\" has also been proved wrong. The fact that we don't have 95% unemployment un the USA right now means that as the rate of job losses has increased, the rate of job creation has also increased at the same rate. So I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's a matter of public record that everyone who has every made your argument with the same justification as to why this time is different has also been wrong.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7897.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"6t8gq2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: Basic universal income will soon be inevitable due to automation. My argument is quite simple. Due to the increasingly smart AI, many low and mid-tier jobs will be replaced within the century. This will lead to massive unemployment. A country with mass unemployment will have a very stagnating economy, for people won't have money to spend, which will result in closing factories, leading to more unemployment etc. This can be relieved by providing people with a basic universal income on top of their salaries, so they will have money to spend on products, keeping the economy afloat. An automated factory requires fewer and smarter(\/better educated) workers. I remember an article (I can't find it) about a self-driving car that had made a strange decision all by itself. Due to the stunning complexity of the AI, the programmers were unable to retrace how the car came to that decision. This goes to show that complex AI requires big brains to operate them. People with low education will not be able to take on those jobs, resulting in unemployment. I'm not arguing the ethical implications of basic universal income, I just don't see an alternative.","c_root_id_A":"dljbrpq","c_root_id_B":"dljbjt6","created_at_utc_A":1502576300,"created_at_utc_B":1502576011,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Since 1800 the rate of job creation has at least matched that of job destruction. - this can be readily seen as we don't have 95% unemployment. So this argument has been made before. Now I'm not saying you're wrong. But what I will say is: ->everyone who's ever made the claim \"Increasing automation will result in catastrophic mass unemployment\" has been wrong. Furthermore, everyone who defended it with \"yeah but this time it's different because the rate of losses is so great\" has also been proved wrong. The fact that we don't have 95% unemployment un the USA right now means that as the rate of job losses has increased, the rate of job creation has also increased at the same rate. So I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's a matter of public record that everyone who has every made your argument with the same justification as to why this time is different has also been wrong.","human_ref_B":"If we use china as an example. We can see over a very short period of time they came from manufacturing assembly lines to low level service (30 years). It's China's biggest obstacle and they are not doing well. Do you know how long it takes to retrain assembly line workers to do technical support? It's not possible because humans are limited in their ability to learn and relearn. Especially the way our society and education systems are built. They cannot cope. This same jump was seen over 200 years in the west. Biggest issue I see with people understanding this issue is \"tractors didn't put farmers out of business so therefore it will never happen \" technology rate of growth is ridiculous over last 100 years. There is no historical trend that will help you here.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":289.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"avuh2r","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"CMV: The tip system in the United States for delivery drivers and servers blatantly punishes empathy. For this reason, it should be abolished. I would also agree that practically any system that punishes empathy should be abolished. Servers and delivery drivers should be paid just like other professions. The wage should be around what an average server would make now, with the option for adjustment based on performance and higher wages at restaurants with higher expectations. Here is why: I understand the money has to come from somewhere, and it would basically be just added on to food prices. This is fine. This just means everyone is actually paying equally for the service they are equally recieving. In the current system, many do not tip at all, and others who feel empathy end up covering for it out of respect for the person serving you. This is unfair. You may argue that I should just tip what's reasonable and not worry about that, but then that's not fair to the server. The system highlighted above helps make it fair to anyone and punishes selfishness and greed instead of empathy. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"ehingt2","c_root_id_B":"ehhuosv","created_at_utc_A":1551400384,"created_at_utc_B":1551381008,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I disliked the tipping system until I lived in a country that didn't have it. As a rule, the waiters were completely apathetic about the diners. They would smoke cigarettes and chat with each other and avoid glancing in your direction. I get that that's a better life for them, and I want people to be happy, but as Tom Waits says, \"you just can't get served without her\". Both systems suck, but I'll take tipping over poor service.","human_ref_B":"I would counter that it doesn't prey on empathy, but it takes advantage of certain demographics over others. If you live in California, for example, your tips are likely very low. Statistically, the best tippers in the United States are * Men. * Republicans. * Northeasterners. * Baby boomers. * Anyone who tips with a credit or debit card. I would suggest that tipping isn't a problem for these demographics, but it is for people who don't want to pay them, ergo young millennials from the southwest who vote Democrat. Based on your view, these people are apathetic.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19376.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"9gxihe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: If religion is a protected class, political affiliation should be a protected class too. The US currently protects people with different religions against discrimination. There are numerous laws and regulations to prevent it, along with measures to redress the situation when it occurs. For example, if a company refused to hire an individual because they were Jewish or Muslim, the person in question could sue the company on EEO grounds. However, there are almost no regulations protecting a person's political affiliation. This has led to, for example, numerous accounts of where people are afraid to truthfully express who they voted for due to possible reprisals from others within the company. Religion and political affiliation should be given the same protections. They are both characteristics that are the foundation of a person's identity. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e67jn4x","c_root_id_B":"e67lndb","created_at_utc_A":1537296412,"created_at_utc_B":1537297994,"score_A":13,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"Do you believe that employers should be forced to employ people with extreme political views? Should a Jew, for example, be forced to employ an 'out and proud' Neo-Nazi if they are otherwise suitable for the job?","human_ref_B":"I think the equation of politics with identity is a bad thing \u2014 if someone votes for a Republican not because they listened to all the candidates with an open mind and chose the one with the best skill set and policy proposals, but because of they identify as Republican, that\u2019s a detriment to the entire political process. The convergence of party affiliation with identity has been increasing over the past 30 years. Democrats and Republicans are less and less likely to support \u201cinter political marriages\u201d\u2014 in 1958, 72% of parents \u201cdidn\u2019t care\u201d if their daughter married a Democrat or Republican \u2014 today that number is 45%. We need to stop thinking of politics as an identity. I\u2019d rather adding some language to the first amendment to protect political speech than having the constitution equate party affiliation with religion or race.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1582.0,"score_ratio":1.8461538462} {"post_id":"9gxihe","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"CMV: If religion is a protected class, political affiliation should be a protected class too. The US currently protects people with different religions against discrimination. There are numerous laws and regulations to prevent it, along with measures to redress the situation when it occurs. For example, if a company refused to hire an individual because they were Jewish or Muslim, the person in question could sue the company on EEO grounds. However, there are almost no regulations protecting a person's political affiliation. This has led to, for example, numerous accounts of where people are afraid to truthfully express who they voted for due to possible reprisals from others within the company. Religion and political affiliation should be given the same protections. They are both characteristics that are the foundation of a person's identity. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e67luge","c_root_id_B":"e67lnqc","created_at_utc_A":1537298147,"created_at_utc_B":1537298002,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"This is an interesting idea. I think there are a few big distinctions between the religion and politics that sort of voids politics from having the same protections: One: The degree to which religious belief and political affiliation affect other members of society: Religion is largely expected to be a personal affair. The expectation is that regardless of your religious views, burdening other people with those views is not alright. You're expected to keep religion to yourself whenever possible, and while behaviours that affect you as an individual are perhaps excused and given leeway within the workplace - behaviours harming others are rarely excused on religious grounds. Political affiliation is, by definition - the method you engage publicly with society. It's impossible to 'keep politics to yourself' because the core aspect of political belief and practice is seeing your viewpoint become the dominant paradigm and to change the world to suit your beliefs. Religion is personal, politics is public. Two: Because politics is (mostly) public and religion is (mostly) private, the same protections wouldn't work. Religious protections can protect individual behaviour and excuse individual actions, but political protections wouldn't work the same because there is no political action or belief that is purely private, and exclusively the individuals action or belief. Someone else is always involved in a political belief or action, that person has rights too that these protections may infringe. Three: Religion is meant to be a system of philosophical belief, politics is meant to be a system of administration and collective decision making. This is linked a little with number 1, but I want to touch a little more on the purpose of both religion and politics. Religion is generally speaking a system of ideology, the tenants are beliefs systems and the goals almost always personal ones. The point of religion is for the individual to decide, because it is theirs and theirs alone. Politics is however a collective endeavour, not a belief system. There is an expectation that the point of politics is to find the best way to administer society collectively. The goals are intrinsically *of* and *for* all people. Political beliefs cannot be exclusively individual. This also comes with the acceptance that because politics affects all people, people must consider others when forming their political beliefs, and not doing so is explicitly damaging to others. Religious protections don't protect behaviours that are explicitly harmful to other people. The same way political protections wouldn't be able to protect behaviours that are explicitly harmful to others. Problem is, arguably all political action is potentially harmful to others, simply because of the nature of political engagement as an activity that necessitates exercising power with, and over, other people.","human_ref_B":"Your argument seems to be that religion and political affiliation are similiar enough that they should be treated the same with regard to protected classes. So i will argue their differences. Religion is a large part of heritable culture. People in the west are christian and atheist. Middle east are Muslim. Indiana are Muslim and Hindu. etc. Even if you don't believe in the literal truth of your religion, it likely shaped you upbringing and values. Religion can also act as a proxy for race. If you don't want to employee Chinese people, all you have to do is not employee people of religions that are popular in china. If you don't want to employ blacks you can refuse to employ baptists. Political beliefs also shape values, but to a lessor extent. They aren't as ingrained in culture. So there are differences there.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":145.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo54dq6","c_root_id_B":"eo551s2","created_at_utc_A":1558290567,"created_at_utc_B":1558290944,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"\"Men\" are not required to pay child support. The Non-custodial parent is required to pay child support. They are required to pay a part of what they would be paying had they not separated from their partner and since they are non-custodial they cannot provide non-monetary support for their child. It is about their responsibility as a parent.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":377.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo55eje","c_root_id_B":"eo559f9","created_at_utc_A":1558291146,"created_at_utc_B":1558291070,"score_A":16,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I didn\u2019t really see any explanation of the amount inconsistency of this view beyond \u201cit would be better to place these kids up for adoption?\u201d Did I miss something? Because that \u201cinconsistency\u201d is very easily explained away, as it\u2019s not in a child\u2019s best interest to be put up for adoption if they have a willing and able biological parent ready to care for them, but it is in that same child\u2019s interest to have resources from both parents.","human_ref_B":"Okay, seriously? You think some people not wanting to argue with you about forcibly removing children from their parents 'for their own good' is so reprehensible that you need to hold a dim view of humanity? Really?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":76.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo55eje","c_root_id_B":"eo54dq6","created_at_utc_A":1558291146,"created_at_utc_B":1558290567,"score_A":16,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I didn\u2019t really see any explanation of the amount inconsistency of this view beyond \u201cit would be better to place these kids up for adoption?\u201d Did I miss something? Because that \u201cinconsistency\u201d is very easily explained away, as it\u2019s not in a child\u2019s best interest to be put up for adoption if they have a willing and able biological parent ready to care for them, but it is in that same child\u2019s interest to have resources from both parents.","human_ref_B":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":579.0,"score_ratio":8.0} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo54dq6","c_root_id_B":"eo559f9","created_at_utc_A":1558290567,"created_at_utc_B":1558291070,"score_A":2,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Okay, seriously? You think some people not wanting to argue with you about forcibly removing children from their parents 'for their own good' is so reprehensible that you need to hold a dim view of humanity? Really?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":503.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo5d5gs","c_root_id_B":"eo55ozl","created_at_utc_A":1558295079,"created_at_utc_B":1558291308,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"How many adoptive parents do you think area available? Because the average child waits three years on the adoption list. There's a lot of demand for healthy white newborn children but very few families that want to take on children with health issues, many adoptive parents value non-caucasian kids less and older children are more rarely adopted because they're seen as harder to integrate into an existing family. Part of the reason foster care is a thing is because there just aren't enough people to adopt all the kids whose parents don't want them. Foster care is terrible though and fails pretty regularly. Mandating that all these children are given up for adoption will probably mean that the newborn healthy white infants get adopted but all the other children languish with inadequate care for years and huge amounts of damage would be done to them. Keeping kids with the biological parents who already want them seems to be the better solution than letting them languish in foster care which has much worse outcomes for kids. https:\/\/adoptionnetwork.com\/adoption-statistics","human_ref_B":"What do you mean by \"the logical consequences\"? You briefly mentioned mandatory adoption, but didn't say much. What are these consequences, and contradictions? I'm going to need them spelled out, as I don't know what your attempting to refer too?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3771.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo5d5gs","c_root_id_B":"eo57f5w","created_at_utc_A":1558295079,"created_at_utc_B":1558292195,"score_A":11,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"How many adoptive parents do you think area available? Because the average child waits three years on the adoption list. There's a lot of demand for healthy white newborn children but very few families that want to take on children with health issues, many adoptive parents value non-caucasian kids less and older children are more rarely adopted because they're seen as harder to integrate into an existing family. Part of the reason foster care is a thing is because there just aren't enough people to adopt all the kids whose parents don't want them. Foster care is terrible though and fails pretty regularly. Mandating that all these children are given up for adoption will probably mean that the newborn healthy white infants get adopted but all the other children languish with inadequate care for years and huge amounts of damage would be done to them. Keeping kids with the biological parents who already want them seems to be the better solution than letting them languish in foster care which has much worse outcomes for kids. https:\/\/adoptionnetwork.com\/adoption-statistics","human_ref_B":"Two questions. It's my guess that most people who make this argument would also be in favor of removing a child from a household where no one was taking care of them. Do you disagree with this, or is it not relevant? What do you think the true reason IS? Why would someone be in favor of child support but not because it helps the child?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2884.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo54dq6","c_root_id_B":"eo5d5gs","created_at_utc_A":1558290567,"created_at_utc_B":1558295079,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"How many adoptive parents do you think area available? Because the average child waits three years on the adoption list. There's a lot of demand for healthy white newborn children but very few families that want to take on children with health issues, many adoptive parents value non-caucasian kids less and older children are more rarely adopted because they're seen as harder to integrate into an existing family. Part of the reason foster care is a thing is because there just aren't enough people to adopt all the kids whose parents don't want them. Foster care is terrible though and fails pretty regularly. Mandating that all these children are given up for adoption will probably mean that the newborn healthy white infants get adopted but all the other children languish with inadequate care for years and huge amounts of damage would be done to them. Keeping kids with the biological parents who already want them seems to be the better solution than letting them languish in foster care which has much worse outcomes for kids. https:\/\/adoptionnetwork.com\/adoption-statistics","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4512.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo57f5w","c_root_id_B":"eo55ozl","created_at_utc_A":1558292195,"created_at_utc_B":1558291308,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Two questions. It's my guess that most people who make this argument would also be in favor of removing a child from a household where no one was taking care of them. Do you disagree with this, or is it not relevant? What do you think the true reason IS? Why would someone be in favor of child support but not because it helps the child?","human_ref_B":"What do you mean by \"the logical consequences\"? You briefly mentioned mandatory adoption, but didn't say much. What are these consequences, and contradictions? I'm going to need them spelled out, as I don't know what your attempting to refer too?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":887.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo55ozl","c_root_id_B":"eo54dq6","created_at_utc_A":1558291308,"created_at_utc_B":1558290567,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What do you mean by \"the logical consequences\"? You briefly mentioned mandatory adoption, but didn't say much. What are these consequences, and contradictions? I'm going to need them spelled out, as I don't know what your attempting to refer too?","human_ref_B":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":741.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo54dq6","c_root_id_B":"eo57f5w","created_at_utc_A":1558290567,"created_at_utc_B":1558292195,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Two questions. It's my guess that most people who make this argument would also be in favor of removing a child from a household where no one was taking care of them. Do you disagree with this, or is it not relevant? What do you think the true reason IS? Why would someone be in favor of child support but not because it helps the child?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1628.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo5i1zp","c_root_id_B":"eo54dq6","created_at_utc_A":1558297494,"created_at_utc_B":1558290567,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"It looks as though you are arguing something different, and frankly simpler in concept, than the people you are arguing with. You've framed it in terms of child support, however your argument seems to really be \"putting X first\" in any context is an absolute. You then equate choosing any solution that doesn't lead to a provably optimal outcome as being intellectually dishonest. The people you are arguing with are not arguing \"putting X first\" as an absolute, but it doesn't mean they aren't arguing \"putting X first\" within what they see as implicit, unstated, practical and moral constraints. In the particular example of child welfare those implicit limits usually include a desire to limit responsibility to those directly involved (no grants from the government for 5 times the support the parents could pay) and a belief that keeping a family together has inherent moral value. They aren't being intellectually dishonest, they're defining their terms differently.","human_ref_B":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6927.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"bqk8lr","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: Claims of \"Child support is about putting the needs of the child first\" are usually intellectually dishonest. What my view is: I'm not taking a stance on what the policy surrounding child support should be, nor am I claiming that \"putting the needs of the child first\" is the only or best reason for keeping the laws the way they are. The specific view that I would like changed is this: \\*\\*When people say \"requiring men to pay child support is about putting the needs of the child first\", by and large, they are being intellectually dishonest\\*\\*. This does not mean I think people are secretly saying \"Of course this isn't true, but I will lie about it\". This does not mean that there don't exist exceptions where people would engage honestly. What it does mean is that the majority of the time someone says \"we have to put the child's needs first\" as a justification for requiring men to pay child support, they will then show signs of intellectual dishonesty if pressed on inconsistencies rather than addressing the arguments with counter arguments that they genuinely find to be convincing. ​ Why I hold it: Every time I have this conversation with someone, this claim is made, and every time when I point out the logical consequences of this belief (e.g. that it would require mandatory adoption in cases where that would provide a better home for the kid) I am met with various sorts of intellectual dishonesty and never an actual argument that addresses or concedes the point. ​ Ways to change my view: 1) Show me that I'm wrong about there existing an inconsistency in the first place. While it's possible to argue dishonestly for true things, people can also be terrible at identifying their true reasoning. If they have the benefit of actually being right, I'm more likely to believe that they're doing their best and the signs of intellectual dishonesty are because they don't know how to argue any more coherently. ​ 2) Show me that there is a line of argumentation that is difficult to articulate and can remain convincing even in the face of the kind of arguments I've been providing, even if it does not ultimately hold up once articulated. ​ 2) If there is a strong majority response of \"yes, I'm the kind of person who says that it's all about the children and I know it's not 100% true, but this is not dishonest because I am completely willing to clarify this when it comes up\". I say \"strong majority\" because how things are framed changes how people respond (and who will respond), and even if there is a weak majority here it is likely that without this framing the response would be different. ​ 3) If there is a strong majority response of being willing to engage honestly about the existence of the contradiction, even if such discussion does not change my mind about the existence of the inconsistency or even the existence of arguments which don't immediately fall apart when challenged. Minds changing on the other side would be proof of honesty, but lack of change would not be proof of dishonesty. ​ \"It's about putting the needs of the child first\" is such a common refrain that it's sure to come up with almost anyone if you raise the topic, and fraudulent claims of moral high ground as so reprehensible that holding this view requires I have a fairly dim view of humanity. Hence the desire for my view to be changed. Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"eo5hnyh","c_root_id_B":"eo5i1zp","created_at_utc_A":1558297303,"created_at_utc_B":1558297494,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Can you give some real examples of the type of claim you are talking about? It's difficult to determine whether someone is being intellectually dishonest without reading the actual words they wrote.","human_ref_B":"It looks as though you are arguing something different, and frankly simpler in concept, than the people you are arguing with. You've framed it in terms of child support, however your argument seems to really be \"putting X first\" in any context is an absolute. You then equate choosing any solution that doesn't lead to a provably optimal outcome as being intellectually dishonest. The people you are arguing with are not arguing \"putting X first\" as an absolute, but it doesn't mean they aren't arguing \"putting X first\" within what they see as implicit, unstated, practical and moral constraints. In the particular example of child welfare those implicit limits usually include a desire to limit responsibility to those directly involved (no grants from the government for 5 times the support the parents could pay) and a belief that keeping a family together has inherent moral value. They aren't being intellectually dishonest, they're defining their terms differently.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":191.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"1nahgv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Chinese Medicine is a waste of time and money, CMV. I am currently in China and have been prescribed Chinese medicine multiple times. No time has it every worked for me. Each time I have ended up taking western medicine to clear up flu like symptoms. Also, I see people with big black rings on their foreheads and backs. It is a method to cure headaches and muscle aches. Seriously? Why not just take a tylenol? I have been sick countless times, and my friends have always brought me some Chinese herbal medicine, but never has done anything. Each and everytime, I end up taking some Western medicine that I manage to find or have brought from home. Not to mention, most western people here I know just laugh at Chinese medicine as if it is some kind of joke. At first I was open minded about Chinese herbal medicine and treatments, but now, after many failed attempts and let downs, Chinese medicine has really failed me. I would love to think of it in a different light because it seems more natural and maybe healthy. BUT, wow, when I am sick, I want to be better. For me Chinese Medicine has never helped. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"cch6s4l","c_root_id_B":"ccgzi0b","created_at_utc_A":1380401529,"created_at_utc_B":1380374538,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Traditional Chinese Medicine is based around volumes of pharmacopeia, which are built over time through experience. For example, Chinese people knew that if you get big lumps on your neck (goiter), you should eat seaweed. They don't necessarily know that goiter comes from iodine deficiency, or that seaweed are rich in iodine, but through experience they know that seaweed cures goiter. They may not know the scientific reason behind why the medicine works, but through experience, a traditional doctor can cure different types of illness. There are many famous pharmacopeia in TCM, perhaps Compendium of Materia Medica being the most famous, and others like Divine Farmer's Materia Medica and Treatise on Cold Damage Disorders are also well known. These books are not 100% correct. Their models of physiology are mostly outdated. Some pharmacological knowledge are actually quite wrong (i.e. lead is not poisonous). However, they contain a wealth of knowledge that have basis in modern science. Chinese medicine is also strong in areas where western modern medicine is weak. Not that Chinese medicine can produce a more non-placebo cure, but that the doctors are able to improve the quality of life of their patients more. In western medicine, if you go to a doctor with a chronic illness, they first make you fill out bunch of forms, hook you up to some machine, and then put you under the knife or give you bunch of medicine that may or may not produce consistent result. All of this process is can be quite intimidating. In Chinese medicine, the doctor talks to you, ask about your life, talk about the way you're living, don't do anything intrusive, etc. Basically having better bedside manner can go a long way in diseases that do not have a consistent cure. I feel like what you think of as Chinese medicine is also not quite what Chinese medicine is. To be a modern practitioner of Chinese Medicine, you need to go to university, just like being a regular medical doctor. You need to learn all the science courses, pass exams to get into a school, and then get certified through exam like you would otherwise. A modern Chinese medicine doctor SHOULD know the scientific knowledge behind the traditional cure, and can combine them both to use them to great effect. What you describe as \"Chinese medicine\" are just folk cures where people buy non-prescription herbs to \"cure\" some disease. It's like homeopathic medicine in the west, but you wouldn't call those as \"Traditional American Medicine\", would you?","human_ref_B":"I don't think the efficacy of \"chinese medicine\" in itself is something that people can reasonably have different views on. Chinese medicine does not follow any scientifical standard. Nearly all \"treatments\" do absolutely nothing to you. And while there's some treatments or drugs that do help, that's not because it's \"chinese\" medicine, but because that drug actually contained an active ingredient, or that treatment method actually fixed a problem. But your statement was that it's a waste of time and money, which is not true in all cases. Since most of the effects of those cold treatments etc, are just placebo effect. Thus if you are susceptible for that effect, those treatments will help to cure you are reduce your symptoms etc, and thus are neither a waste of time nor of money. The problem starts when people think that this is real medicine with proven effects, or when endangered plants or animals get killed for no scientifical plausible reason at all, to be sold and insanely high prices without any reasonable chance to help the patient at all. Also natural is not a positive qualifier. All poisonous plants are \"natural\". Poison hemlock is natural. Many chinese medicine are poisonous, and since there's no authority, and no proof whatsoever for either efficacy or safety, the system in itself is very dangerous. And as the quote goes: What do you call alternative medicine that works\/has been proven to work? - Medicine. **Anyway: You might want to change your view on general waste of time and money part**. Being taken serious and just being given anything helps many people and improves their symptoms, even if you only get a tea made from grass from the next garden. So when such a practitioner can help someone and reduce their suffering just by caring for them, that's fine with me. I only see a problem when people are talked out of proper evidence based medicine which has a high chance of curing them to try something \"different\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26991.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"1nahgv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Chinese Medicine is a waste of time and money, CMV. I am currently in China and have been prescribed Chinese medicine multiple times. No time has it every worked for me. Each time I have ended up taking western medicine to clear up flu like symptoms. Also, I see people with big black rings on their foreheads and backs. It is a method to cure headaches and muscle aches. Seriously? Why not just take a tylenol? I have been sick countless times, and my friends have always brought me some Chinese herbal medicine, but never has done anything. Each and everytime, I end up taking some Western medicine that I manage to find or have brought from home. Not to mention, most western people here I know just laugh at Chinese medicine as if it is some kind of joke. At first I was open minded about Chinese herbal medicine and treatments, but now, after many failed attempts and let downs, Chinese medicine has really failed me. I would love to think of it in a different light because it seems more natural and maybe healthy. BUT, wow, when I am sick, I want to be better. For me Chinese Medicine has never helped. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"cch6s4l","c_root_id_B":"cch2shs","created_at_utc_A":1380401529,"created_at_utc_B":1380388257,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Traditional Chinese Medicine is based around volumes of pharmacopeia, which are built over time through experience. For example, Chinese people knew that if you get big lumps on your neck (goiter), you should eat seaweed. They don't necessarily know that goiter comes from iodine deficiency, or that seaweed are rich in iodine, but through experience they know that seaweed cures goiter. They may not know the scientific reason behind why the medicine works, but through experience, a traditional doctor can cure different types of illness. There are many famous pharmacopeia in TCM, perhaps Compendium of Materia Medica being the most famous, and others like Divine Farmer's Materia Medica and Treatise on Cold Damage Disorders are also well known. These books are not 100% correct. Their models of physiology are mostly outdated. Some pharmacological knowledge are actually quite wrong (i.e. lead is not poisonous). However, they contain a wealth of knowledge that have basis in modern science. Chinese medicine is also strong in areas where western modern medicine is weak. Not that Chinese medicine can produce a more non-placebo cure, but that the doctors are able to improve the quality of life of their patients more. In western medicine, if you go to a doctor with a chronic illness, they first make you fill out bunch of forms, hook you up to some machine, and then put you under the knife or give you bunch of medicine that may or may not produce consistent result. All of this process is can be quite intimidating. In Chinese medicine, the doctor talks to you, ask about your life, talk about the way you're living, don't do anything intrusive, etc. Basically having better bedside manner can go a long way in diseases that do not have a consistent cure. I feel like what you think of as Chinese medicine is also not quite what Chinese medicine is. To be a modern practitioner of Chinese Medicine, you need to go to university, just like being a regular medical doctor. You need to learn all the science courses, pass exams to get into a school, and then get certified through exam like you would otherwise. A modern Chinese medicine doctor SHOULD know the scientific knowledge behind the traditional cure, and can combine them both to use them to great effect. What you describe as \"Chinese medicine\" are just folk cures where people buy non-prescription herbs to \"cure\" some disease. It's like homeopathic medicine in the west, but you wouldn't call those as \"Traditional American Medicine\", would you?","human_ref_B":"Superstition is our proverbial Sound Barrier that we need to break. Religion and superstition need to be wiped out like a plague with the therapy of the scientific method. I see no difference from believing that crushed up tiger liver makes your wiener hard and the belief that a dead Jew carpenter on a stick grants you wishes like a genie.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13272.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"1nahgv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Chinese Medicine is a waste of time and money, CMV. I am currently in China and have been prescribed Chinese medicine multiple times. No time has it every worked for me. Each time I have ended up taking western medicine to clear up flu like symptoms. Also, I see people with big black rings on their foreheads and backs. It is a method to cure headaches and muscle aches. Seriously? Why not just take a tylenol? I have been sick countless times, and my friends have always brought me some Chinese herbal medicine, but never has done anything. Each and everytime, I end up taking some Western medicine that I manage to find or have brought from home. Not to mention, most western people here I know just laugh at Chinese medicine as if it is some kind of joke. At first I was open minded about Chinese herbal medicine and treatments, but now, after many failed attempts and let downs, Chinese medicine has really failed me. I would love to think of it in a different light because it seems more natural and maybe healthy. BUT, wow, when I am sick, I want to be better. For me Chinese Medicine has never helped. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"cch9yo3","c_root_id_B":"ccgzi0b","created_at_utc_A":1380412107,"created_at_utc_B":1380374538,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm not a big believe in TCM. But I will tell you this... it sometimes works very well. From my own case history: - Long time ago I accidentally scalded my whole lower jaw with boiling water and passed out from the pain. At the time, I also had bad food poisoning (vomiting and shitting at the same time). I friend put me on a cart and took me to a TCM clinic... the friend didn't speak Chinese and I was too weak to talk so the cart driver took me to the place he goes to for medical help. At the clinic, a woman (don't know if she was a doctor) put red smelling goop on my face and told me not to wash for 4 days. She gave me these little pellets (smelled faintly of licorice and mushroom) and told me to eat 5, ever 4 hours. Result: got better quickly and had no scar. -Like many people in China, I get bad coughs. TCM anti-flem medicines and anti-cough medicines have been far more effective for me at reducing lung irritation which causes cough. EDIT: also note... not a placebo effect. I don't put faith an particular medicine. I'm saying I that the cough and anti-flem TCM medicines consistently have better results for me than Western medications for this problem. -EDIT: Oh... and I get sweat-rash \/ heat rash in the humid weather. Chinese TCM ointments are the best cures for this I have every used. Unfortunatly, TCM ointments are often more expensive than Western counterparts.","human_ref_B":"I don't think the efficacy of \"chinese medicine\" in itself is something that people can reasonably have different views on. Chinese medicine does not follow any scientifical standard. Nearly all \"treatments\" do absolutely nothing to you. And while there's some treatments or drugs that do help, that's not because it's \"chinese\" medicine, but because that drug actually contained an active ingredient, or that treatment method actually fixed a problem. But your statement was that it's a waste of time and money, which is not true in all cases. Since most of the effects of those cold treatments etc, are just placebo effect. Thus if you are susceptible for that effect, those treatments will help to cure you are reduce your symptoms etc, and thus are neither a waste of time nor of money. The problem starts when people think that this is real medicine with proven effects, or when endangered plants or animals get killed for no scientifical plausible reason at all, to be sold and insanely high prices without any reasonable chance to help the patient at all. Also natural is not a positive qualifier. All poisonous plants are \"natural\". Poison hemlock is natural. Many chinese medicine are poisonous, and since there's no authority, and no proof whatsoever for either efficacy or safety, the system in itself is very dangerous. And as the quote goes: What do you call alternative medicine that works\/has been proven to work? - Medicine. **Anyway: You might want to change your view on general waste of time and money part**. Being taken serious and just being given anything helps many people and improves their symptoms, even if you only get a tea made from grass from the next garden. So when such a practitioner can help someone and reduce their suffering just by caring for them, that's fine with me. I only see a problem when people are talked out of proper evidence based medicine which has a high chance of curing them to try something \"different\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37569.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"1nahgv","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"Chinese Medicine is a waste of time and money, CMV. I am currently in China and have been prescribed Chinese medicine multiple times. No time has it every worked for me. Each time I have ended up taking western medicine to clear up flu like symptoms. Also, I see people with big black rings on their foreheads and backs. It is a method to cure headaches and muscle aches. Seriously? Why not just take a tylenol? I have been sick countless times, and my friends have always brought me some Chinese herbal medicine, but never has done anything. Each and everytime, I end up taking some Western medicine that I manage to find or have brought from home. Not to mention, most western people here I know just laugh at Chinese medicine as if it is some kind of joke. At first I was open minded about Chinese herbal medicine and treatments, but now, after many failed attempts and let downs, Chinese medicine has really failed me. I would love to think of it in a different light because it seems more natural and maybe healthy. BUT, wow, when I am sick, I want to be better. For me Chinese Medicine has never helped. CMV.","c_root_id_A":"cch9yo3","c_root_id_B":"cch2shs","created_at_utc_A":1380412107,"created_at_utc_B":1380388257,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm not a big believe in TCM. But I will tell you this... it sometimes works very well. From my own case history: - Long time ago I accidentally scalded my whole lower jaw with boiling water and passed out from the pain. At the time, I also had bad food poisoning (vomiting and shitting at the same time). I friend put me on a cart and took me to a TCM clinic... the friend didn't speak Chinese and I was too weak to talk so the cart driver took me to the place he goes to for medical help. At the clinic, a woman (don't know if she was a doctor) put red smelling goop on my face and told me not to wash for 4 days. She gave me these little pellets (smelled faintly of licorice and mushroom) and told me to eat 5, ever 4 hours. Result: got better quickly and had no scar. -Like many people in China, I get bad coughs. TCM anti-flem medicines and anti-cough medicines have been far more effective for me at reducing lung irritation which causes cough. EDIT: also note... not a placebo effect. I don't put faith an particular medicine. I'm saying I that the cough and anti-flem TCM medicines consistently have better results for me than Western medications for this problem. -EDIT: Oh... and I get sweat-rash \/ heat rash in the humid weather. Chinese TCM ointments are the best cures for this I have every used. Unfortunatly, TCM ointments are often more expensive than Western counterparts.","human_ref_B":"Superstition is our proverbial Sound Barrier that we need to break. Religion and superstition need to be wiped out like a plague with the therapy of the scientific method. I see no difference from believing that crushed up tiger liver makes your wiener hard and the belief that a dead Jew carpenter on a stick grants you wishes like a genie.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23850.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0opvj","c_root_id_B":"hg0avi0","created_at_utc_A":1633809421,"created_at_utc_B":1633803242,"score_A":25,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I agree that this group is generally severely hypocritical, at face value. However, your suggestion is that anyone who doesn't carry out their personal beliefs to the most extreme level is a hypocrite. I think that's an unrealistic way to approach ideology in general. Would you call someone a hypocrite if, for example, they followed God but chose to reject some of the more hateful teachings of the Bible? What about someone who had a BLM lawn sign but did not take antifascist action against the government? What about someone who believes capitalism is bad, but owns an iPhone? Maybe you have a different answer for all these examples. Ultimately, there isn't a clear line between what is and isn't hypocrisy. Context matters, and beliefs never exist in a bubble. Focusing on hypocrisy in someone's ideology rarely helps to understand that ideology \u2014 more so, it attempts to section beliefs into categories that poorly reflect their complex nature. In this example, it's easy to follow the history of how abortion was used as a right-wing PR tactic attempting to galvanize evangelicals in support of their politics. Once you understand the moving parts behind these beliefs, the hypocrisy fades away into a more nuanced (and explainable) reality.","human_ref_B":"Might change your view in terms of tactics, not principles, assuming our common goal is removing Iron Age superstition as a guiding light of civilization. You\u2019ve struck upon something critical: religion is a reflection of a culture\u2019s values- we constantly recreate God in our own image. Interestingly, God seems to only care about things that are also important to us. Let\u2019s take it for granted that there\u2019s a specific scriptural prohibition against abortion. Let\u2019s also use witchcraft as a placeholder for the variety of biblical mandates we choose not to follow today. The problem with calling a pro-life Christian who isn\u2019t in favor of legislation to permit the burning of witches a \u201chypocrite\u201d isn\u2019t in your reasoning (I share your sentiment here), it\u2019s that, for the most part, people aren\u2019t actually arriving at their conclusions by reading the Bible. Christians don\u2019t care about witches for the same reason you don\u2019t, even though their recent historical counterparts found it highly important. Single-issue abortion voters are motivated by an artifact of a specific subculture, they believe it because their parents and friends do, and they use the Bible as a justification. It\u2019s a sign of group loyalty. It\u2019s more effective to attack the abortion issue in isolation and let the resulting doubt and cognitive dissonance slowly poison the rest of the belief system as opposed to seeking to undermine the religious foundation from the outset. The latter method will cause them to entrench and you we won\u2019t get anywhere. Eventually you\u2019ll start to see God approving of abortion in specific circumstances.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6179.0,"score_ratio":2.7777777778} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0opvj","c_root_id_B":"hg0bdtm","created_at_utc_A":1633809421,"created_at_utc_B":1633803469,"score_A":25,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I agree that this group is generally severely hypocritical, at face value. However, your suggestion is that anyone who doesn't carry out their personal beliefs to the most extreme level is a hypocrite. I think that's an unrealistic way to approach ideology in general. Would you call someone a hypocrite if, for example, they followed God but chose to reject some of the more hateful teachings of the Bible? What about someone who had a BLM lawn sign but did not take antifascist action against the government? What about someone who believes capitalism is bad, but owns an iPhone? Maybe you have a different answer for all these examples. Ultimately, there isn't a clear line between what is and isn't hypocrisy. Context matters, and beliefs never exist in a bubble. Focusing on hypocrisy in someone's ideology rarely helps to understand that ideology \u2014 more so, it attempts to section beliefs into categories that poorly reflect their complex nature. In this example, it's easy to follow the history of how abortion was used as a right-wing PR tactic attempting to galvanize evangelicals in support of their politics. Once you understand the moving parts behind these beliefs, the hypocrisy fades away into a more nuanced (and explainable) reality.","human_ref_B":"Do you also consider the ppl who preach about healthcare for all and the homelessness\/immigration issues hypocrites for not donating every dollar that they instead spend on entertainment or that they dont open their houses\/apartments up to homeless\/immigrants ppl?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5952.0,"score_ratio":3.125} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0opvj","c_root_id_B":"hg04yuz","created_at_utc_A":1633809421,"created_at_utc_B":1633800662,"score_A":25,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I agree that this group is generally severely hypocritical, at face value. However, your suggestion is that anyone who doesn't carry out their personal beliefs to the most extreme level is a hypocrite. I think that's an unrealistic way to approach ideology in general. Would you call someone a hypocrite if, for example, they followed God but chose to reject some of the more hateful teachings of the Bible? What about someone who had a BLM lawn sign but did not take antifascist action against the government? What about someone who believes capitalism is bad, but owns an iPhone? Maybe you have a different answer for all these examples. Ultimately, there isn't a clear line between what is and isn't hypocrisy. Context matters, and beliefs never exist in a bubble. Focusing on hypocrisy in someone's ideology rarely helps to understand that ideology \u2014 more so, it attempts to section beliefs into categories that poorly reflect their complex nature. In this example, it's easy to follow the history of how abortion was used as a right-wing PR tactic attempting to galvanize evangelicals in support of their politics. Once you understand the moving parts behind these beliefs, the hypocrisy fades away into a more nuanced (and explainable) reality.","human_ref_B":">I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. It's not hypocritical to support something that isn't in the Bible (abortion) while not supporting a bunch of things that _are_ in the Bible. If anything, that's the consistent position.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8759.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0opvj","c_root_id_B":"hg02rnd","created_at_utc_A":1633809421,"created_at_utc_B":1633799696,"score_A":25,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I agree that this group is generally severely hypocritical, at face value. However, your suggestion is that anyone who doesn't carry out their personal beliefs to the most extreme level is a hypocrite. I think that's an unrealistic way to approach ideology in general. Would you call someone a hypocrite if, for example, they followed God but chose to reject some of the more hateful teachings of the Bible? What about someone who had a BLM lawn sign but did not take antifascist action against the government? What about someone who believes capitalism is bad, but owns an iPhone? Maybe you have a different answer for all these examples. Ultimately, there isn't a clear line between what is and isn't hypocrisy. Context matters, and beliefs never exist in a bubble. Focusing on hypocrisy in someone's ideology rarely helps to understand that ideology \u2014 more so, it attempts to section beliefs into categories that poorly reflect their complex nature. In this example, it's easy to follow the history of how abortion was used as a right-wing PR tactic attempting to galvanize evangelicals in support of their politics. Once you understand the moving parts behind these beliefs, the hypocrisy fades away into a more nuanced (and explainable) reality.","human_ref_B":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. \"Double standards\" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about double standards in the wiki. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9725.0,"score_ratio":8.3333333333} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg047ey","c_root_id_B":"hg0opvj","created_at_utc_A":1633800327,"created_at_utc_B":1633809421,"score_A":4,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"I think the best argument to counter this is to point out that the very nature of the bible means you *cannot* follow it all to the letter. Consider how hypocritical the bible itself can be; how in some verses it champions a thing or action, and in other verses will demonize the same thing. The bible is a compilation written by many people over many centuries in many languages, with its teachings oftimes co-opted from other sources and then heavily modified, all the while being transliterated poorly over and over again. It's an incredibly messy, disparate book. To that end, how can *anyone* 'strictly adhere' to the bible's teachings? The contradictory nature of much of its writing necessitates that of the myriad things it espouses to be 'good', you *must* ignore all but one in each circumstance. In short, it's impossible to *strictly* adhere to the bible. You can call all Christian denominations hypocritical if you point out that there's a verse in the book somewhere that forbids their certain behaviour. Don't get me wrong - it's a damning criticism of Christianity that the bible is the way it is, and it's absolutely a way of demonstrating how a Christian fundamentalist can justify *anything* to themselves - but I don't think you can call them a 'hypocrite' for ignoring certain areas of the bible when that's what *all* Christians must do, all the time. It's par for the course for that particular brand of theism.","human_ref_B":"I agree that this group is generally severely hypocritical, at face value. However, your suggestion is that anyone who doesn't carry out their personal beliefs to the most extreme level is a hypocrite. I think that's an unrealistic way to approach ideology in general. Would you call someone a hypocrite if, for example, they followed God but chose to reject some of the more hateful teachings of the Bible? What about someone who had a BLM lawn sign but did not take antifascist action against the government? What about someone who believes capitalism is bad, but owns an iPhone? Maybe you have a different answer for all these examples. Ultimately, there isn't a clear line between what is and isn't hypocrisy. Context matters, and beliefs never exist in a bubble. Focusing on hypocrisy in someone's ideology rarely helps to understand that ideology \u2014 more so, it attempts to section beliefs into categories that poorly reflect their complex nature. In this example, it's easy to follow the history of how abortion was used as a right-wing PR tactic attempting to galvanize evangelicals in support of their politics. Once you understand the moving parts behind these beliefs, the hypocrisy fades away into a more nuanced (and explainable) reality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9094.0,"score_ratio":6.25} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0opvj","c_root_id_B":"hg0dafu","created_at_utc_A":1633809421,"created_at_utc_B":1633804320,"score_A":25,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I agree that this group is generally severely hypocritical, at face value. However, your suggestion is that anyone who doesn't carry out their personal beliefs to the most extreme level is a hypocrite. I think that's an unrealistic way to approach ideology in general. Would you call someone a hypocrite if, for example, they followed God but chose to reject some of the more hateful teachings of the Bible? What about someone who had a BLM lawn sign but did not take antifascist action against the government? What about someone who believes capitalism is bad, but owns an iPhone? Maybe you have a different answer for all these examples. Ultimately, there isn't a clear line between what is and isn't hypocrisy. Context matters, and beliefs never exist in a bubble. Focusing on hypocrisy in someone's ideology rarely helps to understand that ideology \u2014 more so, it attempts to section beliefs into categories that poorly reflect their complex nature. In this example, it's easy to follow the history of how abortion was used as a right-wing PR tactic attempting to galvanize evangelicals in support of their politics. Once you understand the moving parts behind these beliefs, the hypocrisy fades away into a more nuanced (and explainable) reality.","human_ref_B":"Because one of them is about killing babies and one is about eating fish. They aren't remotely the same level of importance","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5101.0,"score_ratio":12.5} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0i854","c_root_id_B":"hg0opvj","created_at_utc_A":1633806537,"created_at_utc_B":1633809421,"score_A":2,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":">I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. If it isn't referenced then what's your problem with evangelicals opposing it? Rape also isn't referenced in the New Testament. Is it \"hypocritical\" if I believe that rape is still a bad thing based on the broad moral principles outlined in the Bible, but I don't take every specific sentence of it at face value as a commandment directed at me?","human_ref_B":"I agree that this group is generally severely hypocritical, at face value. However, your suggestion is that anyone who doesn't carry out their personal beliefs to the most extreme level is a hypocrite. I think that's an unrealistic way to approach ideology in general. Would you call someone a hypocrite if, for example, they followed God but chose to reject some of the more hateful teachings of the Bible? What about someone who had a BLM lawn sign but did not take antifascist action against the government? What about someone who believes capitalism is bad, but owns an iPhone? Maybe you have a different answer for all these examples. Ultimately, there isn't a clear line between what is and isn't hypocrisy. Context matters, and beliefs never exist in a bubble. Focusing on hypocrisy in someone's ideology rarely helps to understand that ideology \u2014 more so, it attempts to section beliefs into categories that poorly reflect their complex nature. In this example, it's easy to follow the history of how abortion was used as a right-wing PR tactic attempting to galvanize evangelicals in support of their politics. Once you understand the moving parts behind these beliefs, the hypocrisy fades away into a more nuanced (and explainable) reality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2884.0,"score_ratio":12.5} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg03vpt","c_root_id_B":"hg02rnd","created_at_utc_A":1633800185,"created_at_utc_B":1633799696,"score_A":25,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"My understanding is that it isn\u2019t so much \u201cthe Bible explicitly says abortion isn\u2019t allowed\u201d as it is \u201cI believe all human life is sacred, so killing a completely innocent human life should never be allowed.\u201d There\u2019s definitely counter-arguments to that position, and I\u2019m not saying there aren\u2019t Room Temp IQ types who *think* abortion is explicitly ruled out in the Bible, but there\u2019s a big difference between \u201cI think that fetus is a baby and we probably shouldn\u2019t keep killing it legal\u201d and \u201cI think we should execute people who dress in clothing made of two different kinds of fabric\u201d\u2014 in fact, if it\u2019s the \u201chuman life is sacred, protect the innocent\u201d motivation, the latter belief would be hypocritical. Now, if you want to talk hypocrisy, look no further than prolife people who are also pro-death-penalty\u2026 because then we\u2019re layering killing people on top of *trusting the government to do it fairly*, which is even more laughable\u2026 I suppose I can give *some* credit for it ideally being only for people who\u2019ve done horrible things, vs literally the most innocent people possible re: abortion, but it\u2019s still hypocritical.","human_ref_B":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. \"Double standards\" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about double standards in the wiki. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":489.0,"score_ratio":8.3333333333} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg04yuz","c_root_id_B":"hg0avi0","created_at_utc_A":1633800662,"created_at_utc_B":1633803242,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. It's not hypocritical to support something that isn't in the Bible (abortion) while not supporting a bunch of things that _are_ in the Bible. If anything, that's the consistent position.","human_ref_B":"Might change your view in terms of tactics, not principles, assuming our common goal is removing Iron Age superstition as a guiding light of civilization. You\u2019ve struck upon something critical: religion is a reflection of a culture\u2019s values- we constantly recreate God in our own image. Interestingly, God seems to only care about things that are also important to us. Let\u2019s take it for granted that there\u2019s a specific scriptural prohibition against abortion. Let\u2019s also use witchcraft as a placeholder for the variety of biblical mandates we choose not to follow today. The problem with calling a pro-life Christian who isn\u2019t in favor of legislation to permit the burning of witches a \u201chypocrite\u201d isn\u2019t in your reasoning (I share your sentiment here), it\u2019s that, for the most part, people aren\u2019t actually arriving at their conclusions by reading the Bible. Christians don\u2019t care about witches for the same reason you don\u2019t, even though their recent historical counterparts found it highly important. Single-issue abortion voters are motivated by an artifact of a specific subculture, they believe it because their parents and friends do, and they use the Bible as a justification. It\u2019s a sign of group loyalty. It\u2019s more effective to attack the abortion issue in isolation and let the resulting doubt and cognitive dissonance slowly poison the rest of the belief system as opposed to seeking to undermine the religious foundation from the outset. The latter method will cause them to entrench and you we won\u2019t get anywhere. Eventually you\u2019ll start to see God approving of abortion in specific circumstances.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2580.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg02rnd","c_root_id_B":"hg0avi0","created_at_utc_A":1633799696,"created_at_utc_B":1633803242,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. \"Double standards\" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about double standards in the wiki. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Might change your view in terms of tactics, not principles, assuming our common goal is removing Iron Age superstition as a guiding light of civilization. You\u2019ve struck upon something critical: religion is a reflection of a culture\u2019s values- we constantly recreate God in our own image. Interestingly, God seems to only care about things that are also important to us. Let\u2019s take it for granted that there\u2019s a specific scriptural prohibition against abortion. Let\u2019s also use witchcraft as a placeholder for the variety of biblical mandates we choose not to follow today. The problem with calling a pro-life Christian who isn\u2019t in favor of legislation to permit the burning of witches a \u201chypocrite\u201d isn\u2019t in your reasoning (I share your sentiment here), it\u2019s that, for the most part, people aren\u2019t actually arriving at their conclusions by reading the Bible. Christians don\u2019t care about witches for the same reason you don\u2019t, even though their recent historical counterparts found it highly important. Single-issue abortion voters are motivated by an artifact of a specific subculture, they believe it because their parents and friends do, and they use the Bible as a justification. It\u2019s a sign of group loyalty. It\u2019s more effective to attack the abortion issue in isolation and let the resulting doubt and cognitive dissonance slowly poison the rest of the belief system as opposed to seeking to undermine the religious foundation from the outset. The latter method will cause them to entrench and you we won\u2019t get anywhere. Eventually you\u2019ll start to see God approving of abortion in specific circumstances.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3546.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg047ey","c_root_id_B":"hg0avi0","created_at_utc_A":1633800327,"created_at_utc_B":1633803242,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I think the best argument to counter this is to point out that the very nature of the bible means you *cannot* follow it all to the letter. Consider how hypocritical the bible itself can be; how in some verses it champions a thing or action, and in other verses will demonize the same thing. The bible is a compilation written by many people over many centuries in many languages, with its teachings oftimes co-opted from other sources and then heavily modified, all the while being transliterated poorly over and over again. It's an incredibly messy, disparate book. To that end, how can *anyone* 'strictly adhere' to the bible's teachings? The contradictory nature of much of its writing necessitates that of the myriad things it espouses to be 'good', you *must* ignore all but one in each circumstance. In short, it's impossible to *strictly* adhere to the bible. You can call all Christian denominations hypocritical if you point out that there's a verse in the book somewhere that forbids their certain behaviour. Don't get me wrong - it's a damning criticism of Christianity that the bible is the way it is, and it's absolutely a way of demonstrating how a Christian fundamentalist can justify *anything* to themselves - but I don't think you can call them a 'hypocrite' for ignoring certain areas of the bible when that's what *all* Christians must do, all the time. It's par for the course for that particular brand of theism.","human_ref_B":"Might change your view in terms of tactics, not principles, assuming our common goal is removing Iron Age superstition as a guiding light of civilization. You\u2019ve struck upon something critical: religion is a reflection of a culture\u2019s values- we constantly recreate God in our own image. Interestingly, God seems to only care about things that are also important to us. Let\u2019s take it for granted that there\u2019s a specific scriptural prohibition against abortion. Let\u2019s also use witchcraft as a placeholder for the variety of biblical mandates we choose not to follow today. The problem with calling a pro-life Christian who isn\u2019t in favor of legislation to permit the burning of witches a \u201chypocrite\u201d isn\u2019t in your reasoning (I share your sentiment here), it\u2019s that, for the most part, people aren\u2019t actually arriving at their conclusions by reading the Bible. Christians don\u2019t care about witches for the same reason you don\u2019t, even though their recent historical counterparts found it highly important. Single-issue abortion voters are motivated by an artifact of a specific subculture, they believe it because their parents and friends do, and they use the Bible as a justification. It\u2019s a sign of group loyalty. It\u2019s more effective to attack the abortion issue in isolation and let the resulting doubt and cognitive dissonance slowly poison the rest of the belief system as opposed to seeking to undermine the religious foundation from the outset. The latter method will cause them to entrench and you we won\u2019t get anywhere. Eventually you\u2019ll start to see God approving of abortion in specific circumstances.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2915.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0bdtm","c_root_id_B":"hg04yuz","created_at_utc_A":1633803469,"created_at_utc_B":1633800662,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Do you also consider the ppl who preach about healthcare for all and the homelessness\/immigration issues hypocrites for not donating every dollar that they instead spend on entertainment or that they dont open their houses\/apartments up to homeless\/immigrants ppl?","human_ref_B":">I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. It's not hypocritical to support something that isn't in the Bible (abortion) while not supporting a bunch of things that _are_ in the Bible. If anything, that's the consistent position.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2807.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg02rnd","c_root_id_B":"hg0bdtm","created_at_utc_A":1633799696,"created_at_utc_B":1633803469,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. \"Double standards\" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about double standards in the wiki. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Do you also consider the ppl who preach about healthcare for all and the homelessness\/immigration issues hypocrites for not donating every dollar that they instead spend on entertainment or that they dont open their houses\/apartments up to homeless\/immigrants ppl?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3773.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0bdtm","c_root_id_B":"hg047ey","created_at_utc_A":1633803469,"created_at_utc_B":1633800327,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Do you also consider the ppl who preach about healthcare for all and the homelessness\/immigration issues hypocrites for not donating every dollar that they instead spend on entertainment or that they dont open their houses\/apartments up to homeless\/immigrants ppl?","human_ref_B":"I think the best argument to counter this is to point out that the very nature of the bible means you *cannot* follow it all to the letter. Consider how hypocritical the bible itself can be; how in some verses it champions a thing or action, and in other verses will demonize the same thing. The bible is a compilation written by many people over many centuries in many languages, with its teachings oftimes co-opted from other sources and then heavily modified, all the while being transliterated poorly over and over again. It's an incredibly messy, disparate book. To that end, how can *anyone* 'strictly adhere' to the bible's teachings? The contradictory nature of much of its writing necessitates that of the myriad things it espouses to be 'good', you *must* ignore all but one in each circumstance. In short, it's impossible to *strictly* adhere to the bible. You can call all Christian denominations hypocritical if you point out that there's a verse in the book somewhere that forbids their certain behaviour. Don't get me wrong - it's a damning criticism of Christianity that the bible is the way it is, and it's absolutely a way of demonstrating how a Christian fundamentalist can justify *anything* to themselves - but I don't think you can call them a 'hypocrite' for ignoring certain areas of the bible when that's what *all* Christians must do, all the time. It's par for the course for that particular brand of theism.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3142.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg1c4py","c_root_id_B":"hg04yuz","created_at_utc_A":1633819994,"created_at_utc_B":1633800662,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Sounds like you're gatekeeping on others religion. Just because *you* understand the Bible as x, y, z, doesn't mean others do. It's not hypocritical to take different lessons and beliefs from the same Bible. Also, focusing on religion is a cop out anyways. Abortion isn't a religious debate, there are atheists and agnostics who are pro life (such as myself). You don't need to read a certain book to have an opinion whether an unborn baby should be killed or not. Only an understanding of biology and science","human_ref_B":">I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. It's not hypocritical to support something that isn't in the Bible (abortion) while not supporting a bunch of things that _are_ in the Bible. If anything, that's the consistent position.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19332.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg02rnd","c_root_id_B":"hg1c4py","created_at_utc_A":1633799696,"created_at_utc_B":1633819994,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. \"Double standards\" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about double standards in the wiki. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Sounds like you're gatekeeping on others religion. Just because *you* understand the Bible as x, y, z, doesn't mean others do. It's not hypocritical to take different lessons and beliefs from the same Bible. Also, focusing on religion is a cop out anyways. Abortion isn't a religious debate, there are atheists and agnostics who are pro life (such as myself). You don't need to read a certain book to have an opinion whether an unborn baby should be killed or not. Only an understanding of biology and science","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20298.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg047ey","c_root_id_B":"hg1c4py","created_at_utc_A":1633800327,"created_at_utc_B":1633819994,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think the best argument to counter this is to point out that the very nature of the bible means you *cannot* follow it all to the letter. Consider how hypocritical the bible itself can be; how in some verses it champions a thing or action, and in other verses will demonize the same thing. The bible is a compilation written by many people over many centuries in many languages, with its teachings oftimes co-opted from other sources and then heavily modified, all the while being transliterated poorly over and over again. It's an incredibly messy, disparate book. To that end, how can *anyone* 'strictly adhere' to the bible's teachings? The contradictory nature of much of its writing necessitates that of the myriad things it espouses to be 'good', you *must* ignore all but one in each circumstance. In short, it's impossible to *strictly* adhere to the bible. You can call all Christian denominations hypocritical if you point out that there's a verse in the book somewhere that forbids their certain behaviour. Don't get me wrong - it's a damning criticism of Christianity that the bible is the way it is, and it's absolutely a way of demonstrating how a Christian fundamentalist can justify *anything* to themselves - but I don't think you can call them a 'hypocrite' for ignoring certain areas of the bible when that's what *all* Christians must do, all the time. It's par for the course for that particular brand of theism.","human_ref_B":"Sounds like you're gatekeeping on others religion. Just because *you* understand the Bible as x, y, z, doesn't mean others do. It's not hypocritical to take different lessons and beliefs from the same Bible. Also, focusing on religion is a cop out anyways. Abortion isn't a religious debate, there are atheists and agnostics who are pro life (such as myself). You don't need to read a certain book to have an opinion whether an unborn baby should be killed or not. Only an understanding of biology and science","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19667.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0dafu","c_root_id_B":"hg1c4py","created_at_utc_A":1633804320,"created_at_utc_B":1633819994,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Because one of them is about killing babies and one is about eating fish. They aren't remotely the same level of importance","human_ref_B":"Sounds like you're gatekeeping on others religion. Just because *you* understand the Bible as x, y, z, doesn't mean others do. It's not hypocritical to take different lessons and beliefs from the same Bible. Also, focusing on religion is a cop out anyways. Abortion isn't a religious debate, there are atheists and agnostics who are pro life (such as myself). You don't need to read a certain book to have an opinion whether an unborn baby should be killed or not. Only an understanding of biology and science","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15674.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0i854","c_root_id_B":"hg1c4py","created_at_utc_A":1633806537,"created_at_utc_B":1633819994,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. If it isn't referenced then what's your problem with evangelicals opposing it? Rape also isn't referenced in the New Testament. Is it \"hypocritical\" if I believe that rape is still a bad thing based on the broad moral principles outlined in the Bible, but I don't take every specific sentence of it at face value as a commandment directed at me?","human_ref_B":"Sounds like you're gatekeeping on others religion. Just because *you* understand the Bible as x, y, z, doesn't mean others do. It's not hypocritical to take different lessons and beliefs from the same Bible. Also, focusing on religion is a cop out anyways. Abortion isn't a religious debate, there are atheists and agnostics who are pro life (such as myself). You don't need to read a certain book to have an opinion whether an unborn baby should be killed or not. Only an understanding of biology and science","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13457.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg02rnd","c_root_id_B":"hg04yuz","created_at_utc_A":1633799696,"created_at_utc_B":1633800662,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. \"Double standards\" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about double standards in the wiki. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":">I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. It's not hypocritical to support something that isn't in the Bible (abortion) while not supporting a bunch of things that _are_ in the Bible. If anything, that's the consistent position.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":966.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg047ey","c_root_id_B":"hg04yuz","created_at_utc_A":1633800327,"created_at_utc_B":1633800662,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I think the best argument to counter this is to point out that the very nature of the bible means you *cannot* follow it all to the letter. Consider how hypocritical the bible itself can be; how in some verses it champions a thing or action, and in other verses will demonize the same thing. The bible is a compilation written by many people over many centuries in many languages, with its teachings oftimes co-opted from other sources and then heavily modified, all the while being transliterated poorly over and over again. It's an incredibly messy, disparate book. To that end, how can *anyone* 'strictly adhere' to the bible's teachings? The contradictory nature of much of its writing necessitates that of the myriad things it espouses to be 'good', you *must* ignore all but one in each circumstance. In short, it's impossible to *strictly* adhere to the bible. You can call all Christian denominations hypocritical if you point out that there's a verse in the book somewhere that forbids their certain behaviour. Don't get me wrong - it's a damning criticism of Christianity that the bible is the way it is, and it's absolutely a way of demonstrating how a Christian fundamentalist can justify *anything* to themselves - but I don't think you can call them a 'hypocrite' for ignoring certain areas of the bible when that's what *all* Christians must do, all the time. It's par for the course for that particular brand of theism.","human_ref_B":">I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. It's not hypocritical to support something that isn't in the Bible (abortion) while not supporting a bunch of things that _are_ in the Bible. If anything, that's the consistent position.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":335.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg047ey","c_root_id_B":"hg02rnd","created_at_utc_A":1633800327,"created_at_utc_B":1633799696,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think the best argument to counter this is to point out that the very nature of the bible means you *cannot* follow it all to the letter. Consider how hypocritical the bible itself can be; how in some verses it champions a thing or action, and in other verses will demonize the same thing. The bible is a compilation written by many people over many centuries in many languages, with its teachings oftimes co-opted from other sources and then heavily modified, all the while being transliterated poorly over and over again. It's an incredibly messy, disparate book. To that end, how can *anyone* 'strictly adhere' to the bible's teachings? The contradictory nature of much of its writing necessitates that of the myriad things it espouses to be 'good', you *must* ignore all but one in each circumstance. In short, it's impossible to *strictly* adhere to the bible. You can call all Christian denominations hypocritical if you point out that there's a verse in the book somewhere that forbids their certain behaviour. Don't get me wrong - it's a damning criticism of Christianity that the bible is the way it is, and it's absolutely a way of demonstrating how a Christian fundamentalist can justify *anything* to themselves - but I don't think you can call them a 'hypocrite' for ignoring certain areas of the bible when that's what *all* Christians must do, all the time. It's par for the course for that particular brand of theism.","human_ref_B":"**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. \"Double standards\" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about double standards in the wiki. Regards, the mods of \/r\/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":631.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg1zrlk","c_root_id_B":"hg0dafu","created_at_utc_A":1633831705,"created_at_utc_B":1633804320,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"So if you have a genuine belief that life begins at conception (which many non-religious people also agree with btw although it is not a majority of people who believe in conception etc, still worth noting) and that therefore abortion is murder....you can't vote that way unless you yourself are a perfect person? I think this would be like saying that single issue vote for state welfare programs are hypocrites unless they volunteer at soup kitchens. Generally everyone is a hypocrite in some ways, usually due to the fact that humans can't devote equal emotional attention to every problem even if, given an opportunity to consider an issue and respond intentionally maybe they would do just that. \"Laziness\" in our lives and habits and not living up to our aspirations or values shouldn't be looked at as anything past just being the human condition in my mind. But hey, you do you if you want to hold strong emotional opinions against strangers that can only serve to make you more cynical and not change their behavior one iota.","human_ref_B":"Because one of them is about killing babies and one is about eating fish. They aren't remotely the same level of importance","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27385.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"q4pla8","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Single issue evangelical anti-abortion voters are hypocrites if they don\u2019t live the rest of their lives strictly adhered to the Bible\u2019s ancient teachings, and live lives of service and poverty. I\u2019ve had a few conversations with evangelical family members and I often ask why they are so stringent and hard lined on a few faith-braised political stances, while willing to let so many others go? Like blood sacrifices aren\u2019t such a huge part of life, and why can we eat shellfish or mix fabrics without being put to death? How can you be so hard lined on abortion, and let the other stuff go? Isn\u2019t that hypocritical? Anyways, the answer is always \u2018that\u2019s the Old Testament, we only focus on the new, which is all about love.\u2019 I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. And even if you believe there is a way to twist some passages into being about abortion, if you lived the rest of your life that close to the Bible\u2019s teachings you would do nothing but help poor people and give away all of your possessions to help others less fortunate.","c_root_id_A":"hg0i854","c_root_id_B":"hg1zrlk","created_at_utc_A":1633806537,"created_at_utc_B":1633831705,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">I don\u2019t buy that because my understanding of the New Testament is that abortion isn\u2019t even specifically referenced. If it isn't referenced then what's your problem with evangelicals opposing it? Rape also isn't referenced in the New Testament. Is it \"hypocritical\" if I believe that rape is still a bad thing based on the broad moral principles outlined in the Bible, but I don't take every specific sentence of it at face value as a commandment directed at me?","human_ref_B":"So if you have a genuine belief that life begins at conception (which many non-religious people also agree with btw although it is not a majority of people who believe in conception etc, still worth noting) and that therefore abortion is murder....you can't vote that way unless you yourself are a perfect person? I think this would be like saying that single issue vote for state welfare programs are hypocrites unless they volunteer at soup kitchens. Generally everyone is a hypocrite in some ways, usually due to the fact that humans can't devote equal emotional attention to every problem even if, given an opportunity to consider an issue and respond intentionally maybe they would do just that. \"Laziness\" in our lives and habits and not living up to our aspirations or values shouldn't be looked at as anything past just being the human condition in my mind. But hey, you do you if you want to hold strong emotional opinions against strangers that can only serve to make you more cynical and not change their behavior one iota.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25168.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"8wxnug","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: I don't think a lack of attraction to transgender people is transphobic Attraction comes from internal states as well as cultural and social influence. Attraction is a result of both upbringing and societal beliefs (being attracted to a certain race, or to someone who reminds you of a person from your past) Attraction is also a result of our hormones and brain. \"Born that way\", if you will. Social norms have hard wired gender stereotypes into us since we were born. This undoubtedly affects what is attractive to us. But also, isn't it ok to say \"I'm not attracted to penis\/vagina\/genitalia that is transitioning\" ? If I am a straight woman and I do not want to date a man with a vagina, is that transphobic?","c_root_id_A":"e1zax7z","c_root_id_B":"e200cdl","created_at_utc_A":1531012639,"created_at_utc_B":1531053904,"score_A":31,"score_B":59,"human_ref_A":">. But also, isn't it ok to say \"I'm not attracted to penis\/vagina\/genitalia that is transitioning\" ? If I am a straight woman and I do not want to date a man with a vagina, is that transphobic? Why can't it be both transphobic and okay? In other words, It's solely your business to whom you are attracted. And it's okay to be attracted to whomever you want regardless of the reason. Even if that reason is being transphobic.","human_ref_B":"Choosing an intimate partner is not an equal opportunity situation. From my own anecdotal experience, there\u2019s a lot of weird entitlement attitude in recent generations regarding dating relationships. Sexual and intimate attraction are not rational, and a person\u2019s desires for the kind of partner they want to be with don\u2019t have to involve some kind of chance for all to qualify. When two people are getting to know each other and seeing if they are a match, the only commitment made is just that. To show interest in someone and then find as you get to know them that there is something you can\u2019t get past doesn\u2019t make you a bad person or \u201cphobic\u201d regardless of what that something is. For some reason, people seem to want 100% commitment and obligation before knowing all the facts. This creates an awful situation where kids can\u2019t break up with their boyfriends\/girlfriends without \u201csomething happening\u201d or there being an actual bad mark against the other person as a person. This early, uninformed attachment requirement creates some very unhealthy relationship situations. Not wanting to mate with a person possessing a particular trait doesn\u2019t make you bigoted, it makes you human. You have absolute choice and autonomy in who you choose to partner with. To label someone transphobic is generally accepted to be labeling them as in some way feeling malevolent towards an entire group. Since no one has any inherent right to partner with another intimately, you\u2019re not depriving anyone of something they would otherwise have a \u201cright\u201d to have.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":41265.0,"score_ratio":1.9032258065} {"post_id":"8wxnug","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: I don't think a lack of attraction to transgender people is transphobic Attraction comes from internal states as well as cultural and social influence. Attraction is a result of both upbringing and societal beliefs (being attracted to a certain race, or to someone who reminds you of a person from your past) Attraction is also a result of our hormones and brain. \"Born that way\", if you will. Social norms have hard wired gender stereotypes into us since we were born. This undoubtedly affects what is attractive to us. But also, isn't it ok to say \"I'm not attracted to penis\/vagina\/genitalia that is transitioning\" ? If I am a straight woman and I do not want to date a man with a vagina, is that transphobic?","c_root_id_A":"e2011lc","c_root_id_B":"e202gfp","created_at_utc_A":1531055007,"created_at_utc_B":1531056978,"score_A":11,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"It is not. It is a personal preference that is not being pushed on anyone else (except for the other single person involved). In a hypothetical situation where I find out I'm dating a trans girl (boy to girl): I'm not trying to convince other people that dating\/marrying\/having sex with trans people is wrong; I'm not being a dick by letting anyone else know about the situation; I'm not trying to make you feel bad about the situation. > EDIT: it is also true the other way around: if you try to push your ideas in a way that affects not only that specific trans person, but also other people, it becomes a transphobic problem, because you are not socially accepting that trans person; you are making a problem out of it for everyone, not just you. It is a subtle difference in my opinion. Also, the \"society has a role in it\", I think it's partially true; while I agree with the idea of stereotypes hard-wired in our behaviour, I disagree with the \"attraction\" part; if you are attracted to something, even if you try to deny your feelings, you cannot control them. If you refuse to go out with a tras person, while having feeling for him\/her and being attracted to him\/her, then you are making your decision, probably, on a transphobic hard-wired idea that was pushed down on you. It's a personal preference, period. I would, with all the care in the world, try to settle things so no one gets hurt. I personally have specific preferences about girls that can be a deal breaker for me and I don't see any reason fo feel obligated to force myself to like them just because modern society would tag me like a misogynist. If I weren't to accept them.","human_ref_B":"I hear the argument sometimes that a vag\/penis is just a \u201ctool\u201d and it shouldn\u2019t matter. Like if I meet a man who I\u2019m attracted to and we go to have sex and he has a vagina, that shouldn\u2019t matter to be because overall he is a man. But if it doesn\u2019t matter then why do trans people have gender reassignment surgeries? Why don\u2019t FtM just wear a strap on dildo?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1971.0,"score_ratio":1.9090909091} {"post_id":"8wxnug","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"CMV: I don't think a lack of attraction to transgender people is transphobic Attraction comes from internal states as well as cultural and social influence. Attraction is a result of both upbringing and societal beliefs (being attracted to a certain race, or to someone who reminds you of a person from your past) Attraction is also a result of our hormones and brain. \"Born that way\", if you will. Social norms have hard wired gender stereotypes into us since we were born. This undoubtedly affects what is attractive to us. But also, isn't it ok to say \"I'm not attracted to penis\/vagina\/genitalia that is transitioning\" ? If I am a straight woman and I do not want to date a man with a vagina, is that transphobic?","c_root_id_A":"e2011lc","c_root_id_B":"e211osz","created_at_utc_A":1531055007,"created_at_utc_B":1531093402,"score_A":11,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"It is not. It is a personal preference that is not being pushed on anyone else (except for the other single person involved). In a hypothetical situation where I find out I'm dating a trans girl (boy to girl): I'm not trying to convince other people that dating\/marrying\/having sex with trans people is wrong; I'm not being a dick by letting anyone else know about the situation; I'm not trying to make you feel bad about the situation. > EDIT: it is also true the other way around: if you try to push your ideas in a way that affects not only that specific trans person, but also other people, it becomes a transphobic problem, because you are not socially accepting that trans person; you are making a problem out of it for everyone, not just you. It is a subtle difference in my opinion. Also, the \"society has a role in it\", I think it's partially true; while I agree with the idea of stereotypes hard-wired in our behaviour, I disagree with the \"attraction\" part; if you are attracted to something, even if you try to deny your feelings, you cannot control them. If you refuse to go out with a tras person, while having feeling for him\/her and being attracted to him\/her, then you are making your decision, probably, on a transphobic hard-wired idea that was pushed down on you. It's a personal preference, period. I would, with all the care in the world, try to settle things so no one gets hurt. I personally have specific preferences about girls that can be a deal breaker for me and I don't see any reason fo feel obligated to force myself to like them just because modern society would tag me like a misogynist. If I weren't to accept them.","human_ref_B":"Just a correction: You have no stereotypes hardwired into you from birth. When you're born, the cultural influence is a blank slate. That said, I don't understand the push recently to get people to think men born with vaginas is something that the average woman is going to be attracted to. I don't want to call it a political agenda or anything like that and it's certainly not a conspiracy either. I wish nothing but good fortune to trans people out there but I will never, ever in a billion years be attracted to a woman who was born with a penis and testicles. There's no amount of talking that a person can do to convince me to change my sexual orientation. People can argue that she's a woman now but in my mind, no, she's not. I'm perfectly willing to accept trans people as open members of the culture but I'm not willing to be brow-beaten into believing I'm suddenly homosexual even if the people doing the brow beating insist that it's not homosexual.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38395.0,"score_ratio":1.1818181818} {"post_id":"mlwcl2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: It is invasive, ineffective & condescending to determine the validity\/relevancy of a person's views based off their sexual inclination, sex or gender I am going to try to be as clear as I can. I'm having trouble finding the best words for my thoughts & feelings. Broadly speaking among some left\/progressive leaning individuals (aka \"peeps\") there is an idea that being part of a certain group can make your opinion more or less valid depending on your relation to that group. ​ I think biological sex & the way people self-identify gender wise is a good example. If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. ​ Now I follow the logic of those most affected by something would have a good insight on it but usually that isn't implied inversely, just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it. Minimizing voices of people not directly affected by something could lead you to very suboptimal results than you would have otherwise had. ​ The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. ​ I would be happy to expand on anything obviously but I think if I try to give more examples I'll just muddle it up too much.","c_root_id_A":"gtnwvv1","c_root_id_B":"gtnvcck","created_at_utc_A":1617780274,"created_at_utc_B":1617778851,"score_A":17,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. What this really stems from is really that there's a lot of history of, for instance, straight people telling gay people what being gay is like. Straight people telling gay people what they should or should not find offensive, if they have or have not been discriminated against, how they should or should not feel or what they should or should not want. In all these types of situations, LGBT voices should definitely \"be heard the loudest\", because they are normally the ones who actually know better. A straight person telling a gay person what it's like to be gay is rather absurd, after all, as is trying to trivialize or outright ignore what they've gone through. Obviously there are some cases where this line of argument gets abused (\"If you're not gay you are not allowed to have an opinion on this topic\") which is of course absurd, and no one can pretend that this does not happen. But those types of \"shut down\" arguments exist on all sides - this is hardly worse than straight\/cis people attempting to declare that LGBT people are mentally confused and that society should not indulge in their lunacy. Threads about that pop up here pretty frequently, even. More often than people are told to shut it because they're straight, probably. So in essence, yes what you are saying *does* happen, but it's not more common or worse than the same type of invalid\/bad arguments made from other sides or groups in any other context. If you, as a straight\/cis person is faced with such an argument, it could be pretty good to take a step back and consider if you aren't actually putting words in the mouths of LGBT people, saying incorrect things about them or anything like that. By all means, if you think that your argument is still perfectly valid and should be made, then go ahead. But there are a lot of situations where these arguments do make sense.","human_ref_B":">Now I follow the logic of those most affected by something would have a good insight on it but usually that isn't implied inversely, just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it Those most affected by something are *more likely than the general population* to have good insight. The inverse is not that those who aren't *can't* but that they're less likely. You can't really value one more without valuing the other less, particularly when they're opposed.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1423.0,"score_ratio":1.5454545455} {"post_id":"mlwcl2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: It is invasive, ineffective & condescending to determine the validity\/relevancy of a person's views based off their sexual inclination, sex or gender I am going to try to be as clear as I can. I'm having trouble finding the best words for my thoughts & feelings. Broadly speaking among some left\/progressive leaning individuals (aka \"peeps\") there is an idea that being part of a certain group can make your opinion more or less valid depending on your relation to that group. ​ I think biological sex & the way people self-identify gender wise is a good example. If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. ​ Now I follow the logic of those most affected by something would have a good insight on it but usually that isn't implied inversely, just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it. Minimizing voices of people not directly affected by something could lead you to very suboptimal results than you would have otherwise had. ​ The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. ​ I would be happy to expand on anything obviously but I think if I try to give more examples I'll just muddle it up too much.","c_root_id_A":"gtnwvv1","c_root_id_B":"gtnvjze","created_at_utc_A":1617780274,"created_at_utc_B":1617779046,"score_A":17,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. What this really stems from is really that there's a lot of history of, for instance, straight people telling gay people what being gay is like. Straight people telling gay people what they should or should not find offensive, if they have or have not been discriminated against, how they should or should not feel or what they should or should not want. In all these types of situations, LGBT voices should definitely \"be heard the loudest\", because they are normally the ones who actually know better. A straight person telling a gay person what it's like to be gay is rather absurd, after all, as is trying to trivialize or outright ignore what they've gone through. Obviously there are some cases where this line of argument gets abused (\"If you're not gay you are not allowed to have an opinion on this topic\") which is of course absurd, and no one can pretend that this does not happen. But those types of \"shut down\" arguments exist on all sides - this is hardly worse than straight\/cis people attempting to declare that LGBT people are mentally confused and that society should not indulge in their lunacy. Threads about that pop up here pretty frequently, even. More often than people are told to shut it because they're straight, probably. So in essence, yes what you are saying *does* happen, but it's not more common or worse than the same type of invalid\/bad arguments made from other sides or groups in any other context. If you, as a straight\/cis person is faced with such an argument, it could be pretty good to take a step back and consider if you aren't actually putting words in the mouths of LGBT people, saying incorrect things about them or anything like that. By all means, if you think that your argument is still perfectly valid and should be made, then go ahead. But there are a lot of situations where these arguments do make sense.","human_ref_B":"Imagine that you have a computer which has stopped working. Whose experience is most valuable? Someone who worked with computers for 5 years. Or someone who only ever heard about computers second hand and has never soon one. Now consider that there are 9 people who have never seen computers for every person who has seen a computer. This means that the advice of the person who actually has personal experience, will get drowned out and far overwhelmed by the completely uninformed (or at best, second hand informed) opinions of people who never experienced a computer. >I would be happy to expand on anything obviously but I think if I try to give more examples I'll just muddle it up too much. To be honest, an actual real example rather than the very abstract thinking you've given will probably help.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1228.0,"score_ratio":1.7} {"post_id":"mlwcl2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: It is invasive, ineffective & condescending to determine the validity\/relevancy of a person's views based off their sexual inclination, sex or gender I am going to try to be as clear as I can. I'm having trouble finding the best words for my thoughts & feelings. Broadly speaking among some left\/progressive leaning individuals (aka \"peeps\") there is an idea that being part of a certain group can make your opinion more or less valid depending on your relation to that group. ​ I think biological sex & the way people self-identify gender wise is a good example. If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. ​ Now I follow the logic of those most affected by something would have a good insight on it but usually that isn't implied inversely, just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it. Minimizing voices of people not directly affected by something could lead you to very suboptimal results than you would have otherwise had. ​ The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. ​ I would be happy to expand on anything obviously but I think if I try to give more examples I'll just muddle it up too much.","c_root_id_A":"gtnviuw","c_root_id_B":"gtnwvv1","created_at_utc_A":1617779017,"created_at_utc_B":1617780274,"score_A":4,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"It's true that people in the closet can have relevant experiences and insights into an issue as well. That said, where you say: > The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. Consider that it's often the folks who are \"out\" who are the target of a lot more mistreatment because they are out than those who are not. So, it seems quite plausible that they have more insight into many of the issues that \"out\" people face.","human_ref_B":">If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. What this really stems from is really that there's a lot of history of, for instance, straight people telling gay people what being gay is like. Straight people telling gay people what they should or should not find offensive, if they have or have not been discriminated against, how they should or should not feel or what they should or should not want. In all these types of situations, LGBT voices should definitely \"be heard the loudest\", because they are normally the ones who actually know better. A straight person telling a gay person what it's like to be gay is rather absurd, after all, as is trying to trivialize or outright ignore what they've gone through. Obviously there are some cases where this line of argument gets abused (\"If you're not gay you are not allowed to have an opinion on this topic\") which is of course absurd, and no one can pretend that this does not happen. But those types of \"shut down\" arguments exist on all sides - this is hardly worse than straight\/cis people attempting to declare that LGBT people are mentally confused and that society should not indulge in their lunacy. Threads about that pop up here pretty frequently, even. More often than people are told to shut it because they're straight, probably. So in essence, yes what you are saying *does* happen, but it's not more common or worse than the same type of invalid\/bad arguments made from other sides or groups in any other context. If you, as a straight\/cis person is faced with such an argument, it could be pretty good to take a step back and consider if you aren't actually putting words in the mouths of LGBT people, saying incorrect things about them or anything like that. By all means, if you think that your argument is still perfectly valid and should be made, then go ahead. But there are a lot of situations where these arguments do make sense.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1257.0,"score_ratio":4.25} {"post_id":"mlwcl2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: It is invasive, ineffective & condescending to determine the validity\/relevancy of a person's views based off their sexual inclination, sex or gender I am going to try to be as clear as I can. I'm having trouble finding the best words for my thoughts & feelings. Broadly speaking among some left\/progressive leaning individuals (aka \"peeps\") there is an idea that being part of a certain group can make your opinion more or less valid depending on your relation to that group. ​ I think biological sex & the way people self-identify gender wise is a good example. If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. ​ Now I follow the logic of those most affected by something would have a good insight on it but usually that isn't implied inversely, just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it. Minimizing voices of people not directly affected by something could lead you to very suboptimal results than you would have otherwise had. ​ The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. ​ I would be happy to expand on anything obviously but I think if I try to give more examples I'll just muddle it up too much.","c_root_id_A":"gtnvjze","c_root_id_B":"gtnviuw","created_at_utc_A":1617779046,"created_at_utc_B":1617779017,"score_A":10,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Imagine that you have a computer which has stopped working. Whose experience is most valuable? Someone who worked with computers for 5 years. Or someone who only ever heard about computers second hand and has never soon one. Now consider that there are 9 people who have never seen computers for every person who has seen a computer. This means that the advice of the person who actually has personal experience, will get drowned out and far overwhelmed by the completely uninformed (or at best, second hand informed) opinions of people who never experienced a computer. >I would be happy to expand on anything obviously but I think if I try to give more examples I'll just muddle it up too much. To be honest, an actual real example rather than the very abstract thinking you've given will probably help.","human_ref_B":"It's true that people in the closet can have relevant experiences and insights into an issue as well. That said, where you say: > The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. Consider that it's often the folks who are \"out\" who are the target of a lot more mistreatment because they are out than those who are not. So, it seems quite plausible that they have more insight into many of the issues that \"out\" people face.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"mlwcl2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: It is invasive, ineffective & condescending to determine the validity\/relevancy of a person's views based off their sexual inclination, sex or gender I am going to try to be as clear as I can. I'm having trouble finding the best words for my thoughts & feelings. Broadly speaking among some left\/progressive leaning individuals (aka \"peeps\") there is an idea that being part of a certain group can make your opinion more or less valid depending on your relation to that group. ​ I think biological sex & the way people self-identify gender wise is a good example. If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. ​ Now I follow the logic of those most affected by something would have a good insight on it but usually that isn't implied inversely, just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it. Minimizing voices of people not directly affected by something could lead you to very suboptimal results than you would have otherwise had. ​ The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. ​ I would be happy to expand on anything obviously but I think if I try to give more examples I'll just muddle it up too much.","c_root_id_A":"gtnviuw","c_root_id_B":"gto11hz","created_at_utc_A":1617779017,"created_at_utc_B":1617784346,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"It's true that people in the closet can have relevant experiences and insights into an issue as well. That said, where you say: > The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. Consider that it's often the folks who are \"out\" who are the target of a lot more mistreatment because they are out than those who are not. So, it seems quite plausible that they have more insight into many of the issues that \"out\" people face.","human_ref_B":"> there is an idea that being part of a certain group can make your opinion more or less valid depending on your relation to that group. Yep, it certainly can. After all, experience do makes your opinions more valid. > just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it They can, but in any given scenario, someone unaffected and with little to no experience in X will largely operate only on popular knowledge about X, which usually mean that there will be many misconceptions on which their insight is based off. Can you give an example of any other topic where opinion of someone unaffected and\/or without experience ia automatically treated as equally valid\/relevant as someone who is affected and\/or experienced?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5329.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"mlwcl2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: It is invasive, ineffective & condescending to determine the validity\/relevancy of a person's views based off their sexual inclination, sex or gender I am going to try to be as clear as I can. I'm having trouble finding the best words for my thoughts & feelings. Broadly speaking among some left\/progressive leaning individuals (aka \"peeps\") there is an idea that being part of a certain group can make your opinion more or less valid depending on your relation to that group. ​ I think biological sex & the way people self-identify gender wise is a good example. If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. ​ Now I follow the logic of those most affected by something would have a good insight on it but usually that isn't implied inversely, just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it. Minimizing voices of people not directly affected by something could lead you to very suboptimal results than you would have otherwise had. ​ The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. ​ I would be happy to expand on anything obviously but I think if I try to give more examples I'll just muddle it up too much.","c_root_id_A":"gto11hz","c_root_id_B":"gto0nml","created_at_utc_A":1617784346,"created_at_utc_B":1617783963,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"> there is an idea that being part of a certain group can make your opinion more or less valid depending on your relation to that group. Yep, it certainly can. After all, experience do makes your opinions more valid. > just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it They can, but in any given scenario, someone unaffected and with little to no experience in X will largely operate only on popular knowledge about X, which usually mean that there will be many misconceptions on which their insight is based off. Can you give an example of any other topic where opinion of someone unaffected and\/or without experience ia automatically treated as equally valid\/relevant as someone who is affected and\/or experienced?","human_ref_B":"It's dumb to judge a book by its cover? If that's what you're saying, I mostly agree. It's dumb to completely devalue someone's opinion because of some random parameters of who they are. The flip-side of the coin is that if you wanted someone's opinion on how to build a bridge, and they weren't an engineer, you'd wanna ignore that person. And so when it comes to 'expertise on LGBT+ rights', straight people are inevitably gonna lose that one. So what am I saying? Probably some people take it way too far, probably a lot of straight people have valuable opinions. But in effect, what you're saying makes general sense cause if anything those who are LGBT+ should make a better attempt at understanding the logic of straight people instead of ignoring them, because those are the people they need to convince...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":383.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"mlwcl2","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"CMV: It is invasive, ineffective & condescending to determine the validity\/relevancy of a person's views based off their sexual inclination, sex or gender I am going to try to be as clear as I can. I'm having trouble finding the best words for my thoughts & feelings. Broadly speaking among some left\/progressive leaning individuals (aka \"peeps\") there is an idea that being part of a certain group can make your opinion more or less valid depending on your relation to that group. ​ I think biological sex & the way people self-identify gender wise is a good example. If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. ​ Now I follow the logic of those most affected by something would have a good insight on it but usually that isn't implied inversely, just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it. Minimizing voices of people not directly affected by something could lead you to very suboptimal results than you would have otherwise had. ​ The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. ​ I would be happy to expand on anything obviously but I think if I try to give more examples I'll just muddle it up too much.","c_root_id_A":"gtny229","c_root_id_B":"gto11hz","created_at_utc_A":1617781407,"created_at_utc_B":1617784346,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> If there is an issue affecting LGBTQ (& whatever else may be recognized) people it's common for \"peeps\" to say lgbtq voices should be \"heard the loudest\" or that cis\/straight people should be more accommodating\/lenient in conversations or debates about the topic. > The line of thinking these \"peeps\" follow also forces the hand of people who aren't \"out\" or \"public\" if they disagree with the current view being advocated for by the let's call it the \"general public opinion held among the most notable or vocal of a group\" . If the \"peeps\" assume based off the non-public\/out person's appearance &\/or demeaner that they aren't part of the relevant group they will dismiss or downplay the opinion of someone they otherwise wouldn't. Further limiting possible contributors to a solution. Could you give a specific example in the area of homosexuality? I.e. an issue that affects the LGB side, that non-LGB people disagree with, but which we should accept as a valid opinion. I'm intentionally not asking for the T side, since I can't speak for them.","human_ref_B":"> there is an idea that being part of a certain group can make your opinion more or less valid depending on your relation to that group. Yep, it certainly can. After all, experience do makes your opinions more valid. > just because someone isn't directly affected by something doesn't mean they can't have an insight into it They can, but in any given scenario, someone unaffected and with little to no experience in X will largely operate only on popular knowledge about X, which usually mean that there will be many misconceptions on which their insight is based off. Can you give an example of any other topic where opinion of someone unaffected and\/or without experience ia automatically treated as equally valid\/relevant as someone who is affected and\/or experienced?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2939.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"1dmdji","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"I think that if you are not informed beyond the basics on a topic your opinion is not valid and should have no weight. CMV I hate seeing people that don't know what they are talking about say things that are wrong when it comes to topics that are easy to study. Ignorance and making arguments for it should have no place in society if anyone is to actually have meaningful conversation. It seems ridiculous that people that are ignorant of things should be able to voice their opinion and have it carry any weight.","c_root_id_A":"c9ru14c","c_root_id_B":"c9ruzep","created_at_utc_A":1367608249,"created_at_utc_B":1367610937,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Specialization in anything limits the field of view. sometimes, in order to fix a specialized problem a generalist needs to be brought in to look at it from a fresh unhindered point of view.","human_ref_B":"Not every opinion has to be informed to be valid. Must I know how the CIA performs their \"enhanced interrogations\" or under what circumstances they are authorized to know that I am against state-sanctioned torture? Do I need to know the history and nuances of LGBT issues to know that I'm in support of equality? Besides, it's foolish to think that more knowledge = more wisdom. Does it help in a debate to know lots of stuff about an issue? Sure. But you can have a valid opinion without ever debating it. And what's more, most people - even well-educated people - don't form their opinions based on rational analysis, but rather on emotion. So there's little reason to think that more knowledge would even lead to significantly better opinion-forming. I do think more knowledge is generally a good thing and should be encouraged; I just don't think it's a pre-requisite to having a \"valid\" opinion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2688.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"uh6s76","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: I really don't see a problem with making a real life Jurassic Park. So I know that the point of the original film is that, like, you should not make Jurassic Park in the first place. These are dangerous animals, life is unpredictable and chaotic, and it breaks through barriers, sometimes violently. But think about this realistically: What would happen if a T-rex broke loose? We'd kill it. Very easily. Dinosaurs and apex predators are terrifying to humans when we're on a level playing field with them, but our weaponry is so absurdly good that it would be very easy to kill a T-rex if you just had some guns. I mean, regular civilians in the US have personal armories powerful enough to take down a T-rex, I think that any sophisticated security detail backed with the kind of finances IGN had access to would easily be able to contain any animals that got loose. T-rex has a powerful bite. We have armor shredding ammunition-hollow point rounds\/explosive shells and LOTS of them. Like sure, raptors can get the jump on one security guard if they're clever girls. But they're not going to do that to a hundred well trained\/well armed guys. (This is also why I find the whole premise of Jurassic World stupid. Like, we would easily hunt down and kill all the dangerous dinos if they escaped to the mainland). The only argument I can see is that it's wrong to bring these animals back and exploit them just because it's morally wrong to do that to living creatures. But we do that to cows, chickens, and pigs by the billions every year. So unless you are advocating for vegetarianism\/dismantling the meat industry I don't think you're being consistent. So yeah, build that park. Life sucks and I wanna see a T-rex.","c_root_id_A":"i745id9","c_root_id_B":"i745b7u","created_at_utc_A":1651547764,"created_at_utc_B":1651547667,"score_A":80,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"\"would easily be able to contain any animal that gets loose\" Counterpoint: some invasive species are reaaaally hard to get rid of. What if it turns out that some dinosaurs end up escaping and they're REALLY tough invasive species that fuck up an ecosystem?","human_ref_B":"two words: invasive species","labels":1,"seconds_difference":97.0,"score_ratio":26.6666666667} {"post_id":"uh6s76","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: I really don't see a problem with making a real life Jurassic Park. So I know that the point of the original film is that, like, you should not make Jurassic Park in the first place. These are dangerous animals, life is unpredictable and chaotic, and it breaks through barriers, sometimes violently. But think about this realistically: What would happen if a T-rex broke loose? We'd kill it. Very easily. Dinosaurs and apex predators are terrifying to humans when we're on a level playing field with them, but our weaponry is so absurdly good that it would be very easy to kill a T-rex if you just had some guns. I mean, regular civilians in the US have personal armories powerful enough to take down a T-rex, I think that any sophisticated security detail backed with the kind of finances IGN had access to would easily be able to contain any animals that got loose. T-rex has a powerful bite. We have armor shredding ammunition-hollow point rounds\/explosive shells and LOTS of them. Like sure, raptors can get the jump on one security guard if they're clever girls. But they're not going to do that to a hundred well trained\/well armed guys. (This is also why I find the whole premise of Jurassic World stupid. Like, we would easily hunt down and kill all the dangerous dinos if they escaped to the mainland). The only argument I can see is that it's wrong to bring these animals back and exploit them just because it's morally wrong to do that to living creatures. But we do that to cows, chickens, and pigs by the billions every year. So unless you are advocating for vegetarianism\/dismantling the meat industry I don't think you're being consistent. So yeah, build that park. Life sucks and I wanna see a T-rex.","c_root_id_A":"i74504x","c_root_id_B":"i745id9","created_at_utc_A":1651547515,"created_at_utc_B":1651547764,"score_A":2,"score_B":80,"human_ref_A":"counterpoint: i think the big bugs from the triassic were cooler so we should bring those back instead","human_ref_B":"\"would easily be able to contain any animal that gets loose\" Counterpoint: some invasive species are reaaaally hard to get rid of. What if it turns out that some dinosaurs end up escaping and they're REALLY tough invasive species that fuck up an ecosystem?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":249.0,"score_ratio":40.0} {"post_id":"uh6s76","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: I really don't see a problem with making a real life Jurassic Park. So I know that the point of the original film is that, like, you should not make Jurassic Park in the first place. These are dangerous animals, life is unpredictable and chaotic, and it breaks through barriers, sometimes violently. But think about this realistically: What would happen if a T-rex broke loose? We'd kill it. Very easily. Dinosaurs and apex predators are terrifying to humans when we're on a level playing field with them, but our weaponry is so absurdly good that it would be very easy to kill a T-rex if you just had some guns. I mean, regular civilians in the US have personal armories powerful enough to take down a T-rex, I think that any sophisticated security detail backed with the kind of finances IGN had access to would easily be able to contain any animals that got loose. T-rex has a powerful bite. We have armor shredding ammunition-hollow point rounds\/explosive shells and LOTS of them. Like sure, raptors can get the jump on one security guard if they're clever girls. But they're not going to do that to a hundred well trained\/well armed guys. (This is also why I find the whole premise of Jurassic World stupid. Like, we would easily hunt down and kill all the dangerous dinos if they escaped to the mainland). The only argument I can see is that it's wrong to bring these animals back and exploit them just because it's morally wrong to do that to living creatures. But we do that to cows, chickens, and pigs by the billions every year. So unless you are advocating for vegetarianism\/dismantling the meat industry I don't think you're being consistent. So yeah, build that park. Life sucks and I wanna see a T-rex.","c_root_id_A":"i745x14","c_root_id_B":"i7460up","created_at_utc_A":1651547964,"created_at_utc_B":1651548013,"score_A":9,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Hollow points are good on soft targets, I\u2019d have to imagine that the skin of a large Dino is pretty thick. So hollow points are out. Explosive ammo? That\u2019s a lot harder to come by than you think, need permits and yearly fees to be paid to get your hands on that. AP rounds are designed to hit something made from an incredibly hard material, punch through that then expand if they don\u2019t fragment as they pass through. Shooting AP at say a buffalo or elephant seems like a good idea until you realize that. If you don\u2019t hit a large hard bone, the bullet will have a hard time expanding. Then we come to the fact that I wouldn\u2019t trust anything smaller than a .308 on a T-Rex and even then I\u2019m willing to bet it\u2019s a light. Calibers that\u2019s are used on elephants, which realistically is what you\u2019d need to take on a T-Rex aren\u2019t in the average American\u2019s gun safe. And yes you could probably take down a T-Rex with 100 guys with 5.56 ARs but that\u2019s more just pour lead at it until it dies or you run out of ammo. Then like it the movie the people behind the Dino don\u2019t want it killed because of the money and time invested in it.","human_ref_B":"I think there\u2019s a level of moral consistency in allowing for animals (livestock) and getting a tangible product like food, clothing, etc. vs. resurrecting an an extinct species for no other reason than to use them as entertainment in an amusement park. Exploitation isn\u2019t equal across all circumstances and it\u2019s also not necessarily inherently wrong to exploit something. Drawing a line doesn\u2019t make you inconsistent.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":49.0,"score_ratio":1.2222222222} {"post_id":"uh6s76","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: I really don't see a problem with making a real life Jurassic Park. So I know that the point of the original film is that, like, you should not make Jurassic Park in the first place. These are dangerous animals, life is unpredictable and chaotic, and it breaks through barriers, sometimes violently. But think about this realistically: What would happen if a T-rex broke loose? We'd kill it. Very easily. Dinosaurs and apex predators are terrifying to humans when we're on a level playing field with them, but our weaponry is so absurdly good that it would be very easy to kill a T-rex if you just had some guns. I mean, regular civilians in the US have personal armories powerful enough to take down a T-rex, I think that any sophisticated security detail backed with the kind of finances IGN had access to would easily be able to contain any animals that got loose. T-rex has a powerful bite. We have armor shredding ammunition-hollow point rounds\/explosive shells and LOTS of them. Like sure, raptors can get the jump on one security guard if they're clever girls. But they're not going to do that to a hundred well trained\/well armed guys. (This is also why I find the whole premise of Jurassic World stupid. Like, we would easily hunt down and kill all the dangerous dinos if they escaped to the mainland). The only argument I can see is that it's wrong to bring these animals back and exploit them just because it's morally wrong to do that to living creatures. But we do that to cows, chickens, and pigs by the billions every year. So unless you are advocating for vegetarianism\/dismantling the meat industry I don't think you're being consistent. So yeah, build that park. Life sucks and I wanna see a T-rex.","c_root_id_A":"i745b7u","c_root_id_B":"i7460up","created_at_utc_A":1651547667,"created_at_utc_B":1651548013,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"two words: invasive species","human_ref_B":"I think there\u2019s a level of moral consistency in allowing for animals (livestock) and getting a tangible product like food, clothing, etc. vs. resurrecting an an extinct species for no other reason than to use them as entertainment in an amusement park. Exploitation isn\u2019t equal across all circumstances and it\u2019s also not necessarily inherently wrong to exploit something. Drawing a line doesn\u2019t make you inconsistent.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":346.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"uh6s76","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: I really don't see a problem with making a real life Jurassic Park. So I know that the point of the original film is that, like, you should not make Jurassic Park in the first place. These are dangerous animals, life is unpredictable and chaotic, and it breaks through barriers, sometimes violently. But think about this realistically: What would happen if a T-rex broke loose? We'd kill it. Very easily. Dinosaurs and apex predators are terrifying to humans when we're on a level playing field with them, but our weaponry is so absurdly good that it would be very easy to kill a T-rex if you just had some guns. I mean, regular civilians in the US have personal armories powerful enough to take down a T-rex, I think that any sophisticated security detail backed with the kind of finances IGN had access to would easily be able to contain any animals that got loose. T-rex has a powerful bite. We have armor shredding ammunition-hollow point rounds\/explosive shells and LOTS of them. Like sure, raptors can get the jump on one security guard if they're clever girls. But they're not going to do that to a hundred well trained\/well armed guys. (This is also why I find the whole premise of Jurassic World stupid. Like, we would easily hunt down and kill all the dangerous dinos if they escaped to the mainland). The only argument I can see is that it's wrong to bring these animals back and exploit them just because it's morally wrong to do that to living creatures. But we do that to cows, chickens, and pigs by the billions every year. So unless you are advocating for vegetarianism\/dismantling the meat industry I don't think you're being consistent. So yeah, build that park. Life sucks and I wanna see a T-rex.","c_root_id_A":"i74504x","c_root_id_B":"i7460up","created_at_utc_A":1651547515,"created_at_utc_B":1651548013,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"counterpoint: i think the big bugs from the triassic were cooler so we should bring those back instead","human_ref_B":"I think there\u2019s a level of moral consistency in allowing for animals (livestock) and getting a tangible product like food, clothing, etc. vs. resurrecting an an extinct species for no other reason than to use them as entertainment in an amusement park. Exploitation isn\u2019t equal across all circumstances and it\u2019s also not necessarily inherently wrong to exploit something. Drawing a line doesn\u2019t make you inconsistent.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":498.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"uh6s76","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: I really don't see a problem with making a real life Jurassic Park. So I know that the point of the original film is that, like, you should not make Jurassic Park in the first place. These are dangerous animals, life is unpredictable and chaotic, and it breaks through barriers, sometimes violently. But think about this realistically: What would happen if a T-rex broke loose? We'd kill it. Very easily. Dinosaurs and apex predators are terrifying to humans when we're on a level playing field with them, but our weaponry is so absurdly good that it would be very easy to kill a T-rex if you just had some guns. I mean, regular civilians in the US have personal armories powerful enough to take down a T-rex, I think that any sophisticated security detail backed with the kind of finances IGN had access to would easily be able to contain any animals that got loose. T-rex has a powerful bite. We have armor shredding ammunition-hollow point rounds\/explosive shells and LOTS of them. Like sure, raptors can get the jump on one security guard if they're clever girls. But they're not going to do that to a hundred well trained\/well armed guys. (This is also why I find the whole premise of Jurassic World stupid. Like, we would easily hunt down and kill all the dangerous dinos if they escaped to the mainland). The only argument I can see is that it's wrong to bring these animals back and exploit them just because it's morally wrong to do that to living creatures. But we do that to cows, chickens, and pigs by the billions every year. So unless you are advocating for vegetarianism\/dismantling the meat industry I don't think you're being consistent. So yeah, build that park. Life sucks and I wanna see a T-rex.","c_root_id_A":"i745x14","c_root_id_B":"i745b7u","created_at_utc_A":1651547964,"created_at_utc_B":1651547667,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Hollow points are good on soft targets, I\u2019d have to imagine that the skin of a large Dino is pretty thick. So hollow points are out. Explosive ammo? That\u2019s a lot harder to come by than you think, need permits and yearly fees to be paid to get your hands on that. AP rounds are designed to hit something made from an incredibly hard material, punch through that then expand if they don\u2019t fragment as they pass through. Shooting AP at say a buffalo or elephant seems like a good idea until you realize that. If you don\u2019t hit a large hard bone, the bullet will have a hard time expanding. Then we come to the fact that I wouldn\u2019t trust anything smaller than a .308 on a T-Rex and even then I\u2019m willing to bet it\u2019s a light. Calibers that\u2019s are used on elephants, which realistically is what you\u2019d need to take on a T-Rex aren\u2019t in the average American\u2019s gun safe. And yes you could probably take down a T-Rex with 100 guys with 5.56 ARs but that\u2019s more just pour lead at it until it dies or you run out of ammo. Then like it the movie the people behind the Dino don\u2019t want it killed because of the money and time invested in it.","human_ref_B":"two words: invasive species","labels":1,"seconds_difference":297.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"uh6s76","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: I really don't see a problem with making a real life Jurassic Park. So I know that the point of the original film is that, like, you should not make Jurassic Park in the first place. These are dangerous animals, life is unpredictable and chaotic, and it breaks through barriers, sometimes violently. But think about this realistically: What would happen if a T-rex broke loose? We'd kill it. Very easily. Dinosaurs and apex predators are terrifying to humans when we're on a level playing field with them, but our weaponry is so absurdly good that it would be very easy to kill a T-rex if you just had some guns. I mean, regular civilians in the US have personal armories powerful enough to take down a T-rex, I think that any sophisticated security detail backed with the kind of finances IGN had access to would easily be able to contain any animals that got loose. T-rex has a powerful bite. We have armor shredding ammunition-hollow point rounds\/explosive shells and LOTS of them. Like sure, raptors can get the jump on one security guard if they're clever girls. But they're not going to do that to a hundred well trained\/well armed guys. (This is also why I find the whole premise of Jurassic World stupid. Like, we would easily hunt down and kill all the dangerous dinos if they escaped to the mainland). The only argument I can see is that it's wrong to bring these animals back and exploit them just because it's morally wrong to do that to living creatures. But we do that to cows, chickens, and pigs by the billions every year. So unless you are advocating for vegetarianism\/dismantling the meat industry I don't think you're being consistent. So yeah, build that park. Life sucks and I wanna see a T-rex.","c_root_id_A":"i74504x","c_root_id_B":"i745x14","created_at_utc_A":1651547515,"created_at_utc_B":1651547964,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"counterpoint: i think the big bugs from the triassic were cooler so we should bring those back instead","human_ref_B":"Hollow points are good on soft targets, I\u2019d have to imagine that the skin of a large Dino is pretty thick. So hollow points are out. Explosive ammo? That\u2019s a lot harder to come by than you think, need permits and yearly fees to be paid to get your hands on that. AP rounds are designed to hit something made from an incredibly hard material, punch through that then expand if they don\u2019t fragment as they pass through. Shooting AP at say a buffalo or elephant seems like a good idea until you realize that. If you don\u2019t hit a large hard bone, the bullet will have a hard time expanding. Then we come to the fact that I wouldn\u2019t trust anything smaller than a .308 on a T-Rex and even then I\u2019m willing to bet it\u2019s a light. Calibers that\u2019s are used on elephants, which realistically is what you\u2019d need to take on a T-Rex aren\u2019t in the average American\u2019s gun safe. And yes you could probably take down a T-Rex with 100 guys with 5.56 ARs but that\u2019s more just pour lead at it until it dies or you run out of ammo. Then like it the movie the people behind the Dino don\u2019t want it killed because of the money and time invested in it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":449.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"uh6s76","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: I really don't see a problem with making a real life Jurassic Park. So I know that the point of the original film is that, like, you should not make Jurassic Park in the first place. These are dangerous animals, life is unpredictable and chaotic, and it breaks through barriers, sometimes violently. But think about this realistically: What would happen if a T-rex broke loose? We'd kill it. Very easily. Dinosaurs and apex predators are terrifying to humans when we're on a level playing field with them, but our weaponry is so absurdly good that it would be very easy to kill a T-rex if you just had some guns. I mean, regular civilians in the US have personal armories powerful enough to take down a T-rex, I think that any sophisticated security detail backed with the kind of finances IGN had access to would easily be able to contain any animals that got loose. T-rex has a powerful bite. We have armor shredding ammunition-hollow point rounds\/explosive shells and LOTS of them. Like sure, raptors can get the jump on one security guard if they're clever girls. But they're not going to do that to a hundred well trained\/well armed guys. (This is also why I find the whole premise of Jurassic World stupid. Like, we would easily hunt down and kill all the dangerous dinos if they escaped to the mainland). The only argument I can see is that it's wrong to bring these animals back and exploit them just because it's morally wrong to do that to living creatures. But we do that to cows, chickens, and pigs by the billions every year. So unless you are advocating for vegetarianism\/dismantling the meat industry I don't think you're being consistent. So yeah, build that park. Life sucks and I wanna see a T-rex.","c_root_id_A":"i745b7u","c_root_id_B":"i74504x","created_at_utc_A":1651547667,"created_at_utc_B":1651547515,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"two words: invasive species","human_ref_B":"counterpoint: i think the big bugs from the triassic were cooler so we should bring those back instead","labels":1,"seconds_difference":152.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"uh6s76","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: I really don't see a problem with making a real life Jurassic Park. So I know that the point of the original film is that, like, you should not make Jurassic Park in the first place. These are dangerous animals, life is unpredictable and chaotic, and it breaks through barriers, sometimes violently. But think about this realistically: What would happen if a T-rex broke loose? We'd kill it. Very easily. Dinosaurs and apex predators are terrifying to humans when we're on a level playing field with them, but our weaponry is so absurdly good that it would be very easy to kill a T-rex if you just had some guns. I mean, regular civilians in the US have personal armories powerful enough to take down a T-rex, I think that any sophisticated security detail backed with the kind of finances IGN had access to would easily be able to contain any animals that got loose. T-rex has a powerful bite. We have armor shredding ammunition-hollow point rounds\/explosive shells and LOTS of them. Like sure, raptors can get the jump on one security guard if they're clever girls. But they're not going to do that to a hundred well trained\/well armed guys. (This is also why I find the whole premise of Jurassic World stupid. Like, we would easily hunt down and kill all the dangerous dinos if they escaped to the mainland). The only argument I can see is that it's wrong to bring these animals back and exploit them just because it's morally wrong to do that to living creatures. But we do that to cows, chickens, and pigs by the billions every year. So unless you are advocating for vegetarianism\/dismantling the meat industry I don't think you're being consistent. So yeah, build that park. Life sucks and I wanna see a T-rex.","c_root_id_A":"i747eer","c_root_id_B":"i74504x","created_at_utc_A":1651548720,"created_at_utc_B":1651547515,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The real risk isn't the dinosaurs breaking loose and killing everyone it's them getting a disease that spreads to humans and ends up being like the bird-flu but instead the T-rex flu and kills a ton of people. We have no idea what their immune systems would be like to expose them to tourists who travel from all over the world and vice versa is just dumb.","human_ref_B":"counterpoint: i think the big bugs from the triassic were cooler so we should bring those back instead","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1205.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"810f8b","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: I don't believe that 'non-binary' or 'genderfluid' people is a real thing, and that the people who claim these things are mostly doing so because it's trendy. I want to preface this by saying that I'm not anti-gay, or anti-trans, or anything like that so that's not what I mean when I say this. What I mean is that the people who say they are \"non-binary\", or \"genderfluid\", or that their gender is a specific thing that's not male or female(Whatever \"greygender\" is being the most popular one I've seen) are just talking nonsense. I would say most of these people are doing it because either they're gay and they feel that they're also this other thing that they heard about because they're still coming to terms with themselves(since straight people are few and far between if you look at those who identify as these things) or because someone told them this was a thing and they thought it was cool so they went with it too. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"duzl4ol","c_root_id_B":"duzj8hj","created_at_utc_A":1519861149,"created_at_utc_B":1519859172,"score_A":34,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"(Copied from another thread with the same topic.) There are various studies that suggest that gender identity is fixed very early in human development (shortly before\/shortly after birth). Throughout pregnancy, the fetus receives various hormonal floods that trigger certain developments, especially those of primary sex characteristics (genitalia, internal organs). The brain does get hormonal floods as well. In transgender people, some parts of the brain (especially in the White Matter) are more similar to cisgender people of their gender identity than to cisgender people who share their sex (transgender men\u2018s brains are more similar to men who were assigned male at birth and vice versa). So, in most cases, the hormonal flooding of the brain corresponds with the rest of the body. In some cases, it does not, which results in someone being transgender. However, this is not a black-and-white case! It\u2018s more shades of grey that go from \u201ewow this brain has some structures that seem very female!\u201c over \u201euh, we can\u2019t really say if this brain\u2019s structures are more male or female...\u201c to \u201ewow this brain has some structures that seem very male!\u201c As you know, there are intersex people. Various intersex conditions have various origins, including some where the body doesn\u2018t respond (well) to certain hormones. It just simply ignores testosterone, for example, and runs the \u201efemale standard program\u201c. So, bodies don\u2018t come in just two examples only! There\u2018s various shades in between that happen a bit less frequently but result in viable offspring. The shade in which the body comes and the shade in which the brain comes usually correspond. If a body is strongly on one end of the spectrum, but the brain\u2018s structures are on the other side, the person is transgender. Now imagine someone\u2018s body being on one end of the spectrum but their brain just kind of hangs out in the middle part. They don\u2018t really feel male or female \u00af\\_(\u30c4)_\/\u00af maybe the usual hormonal fluctuations that happen in everybody make them feel more masculine on some days and more feminine on other days, who knows. They also might experience gender dysphoria. (Nonbinary\/agender\/genderfluid people are usually counted as being under the trans umbrella as well because, well, it\u2018s a spectrum and we all face similar problems) Sadly, there has never been done such a study on nonbinary\/gender fluid people, so we don\u2018t know for sure, but there are various studies on (binary) trans people\u2018s brain structures and we know that neither brains nor bodies come in just two options. Edit: By the way, I know plenty of nonbinary\/agender people who seek medical treatment (hormones and\/or surgery) in order to achieve some sort of middle ground that corresponds with their sense of self, and usually change their legal name (unless it\u2018s fairly gender neutral to begin with). Why would they fake that? It\u2018s expensive, it\u2018s a hassle, it\u2018s often years of fighting with insurances, plus they all have to be assessed by psychiatrists in order to get any medical treatment at all.","human_ref_B":"So I take it you believe in binary trans people yes? That is people are assigned one sex and transition into the opposite.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1977.0,"score_ratio":4.25} {"post_id":"1i52cz","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"I believe that simulating a human brain on a computer will produce a being that has the experience of being alive, and that it would be wrong to create such a simulation if we are not going to give it all the rights and protectioms that any human being deserves. CMV 1. Our conscious experience is the result of the physical computations that happen in our brain. 2. This computation process is independent of the medium on which it runs (if you run the exact same computations on a computer to replicate the processes of a mind you will have a mind) 3. Our human rights are derived from the fact that we are sentient beings that experience the world. 4. By 1, 2, and 3, if we simulate a brain, it will have consciousness and should have all the rights of any other being.","c_root_id_A":"cb132jc","c_root_id_B":"cb182h9","created_at_utc_A":1373621691,"created_at_utc_B":1373644254,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">Our human rights are derived from the fact that we are sentient beings that experience the world. a) Isn't our human right derived from the fact that we are part of the human spices? After all, a deteriorating human brain has human rights until the point which the subject is declared brain-dead. On the path down, barely recognizable to another human and animal-like, they still have human rights. b) Don't animals count as sentient beings as well? Just like we perform testing on animals for the greater good or slaughter them for food and skin, we could produce a sentient being for the sake of advancement.","human_ref_B":"Let's say instead of a computer you had a big room full of very smart people with pencil, paper, and calculators, and instead of executing the computer code on CPUs these people execute it by hand, providing and consuming calculations and data by exchanging slips of paper with the proper person (each person corresponding to a range of memory addresses and\/or CPU cores). Input and output devices on the computer still exist, but aren't hooked up; people merely monitor them and write down the appropriate signals that they would have produced. If these people are fast enough and there are enough of them to simulate at reasonable speed, is there a \"being that has the experience of being alive\" and if so where is it?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22563.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1hajga","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. Equality is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. Any reason other than budget cuts is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. People will lose their lives because our military has become caught up in the grand social experiment that is equalism, and I believe that is indefensible. Prove me wrong and CMV. For reference: Perfect Score for a 52-56 year old male on APFT is 56 pushups\/2m, 66 situps\/2m, 14:42\/2mi Perfect score for a 27-31 year old female on APFT is 50, 82, 15:36","c_root_id_A":"casikn6","c_root_id_B":"casiuzy","created_at_utc_A":1372488116,"created_at_utc_B":1372489579,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"> Perfect Score for a 52-56 year old male on APFT is 56 pushups\/2m, 66 situps\/2m, 14:42\/2mi >Perfect score for a 27-31 year old female on APFT is 50, 82, 15:36 This is a problem. However, if the perfect score (and minimum score, as discussed lower) were made *equal* for both genders, why should a woman who is able to complete the same physical tasks as men who are able to get in, not be able to get in? I don't necessarily believe in doing anything to allow women to get in at an equal rate as men, but those few women who are able to match the same physical standards should be. I believe there is no reasonable way to oppose that belief.","human_ref_B":"I get the impression you're assuming the women who will be in these front line positions will entirely consist of women who are there to break the glass ceiling specifically to wave the flag of equality. Since we have a volunteer military(and not just in the Army, but all branches) there will presumably be a variety of women entering recruitment offices. Some of these will be more physically fit than others, some will have better analytical minds. That is exactly the same case as men, and while recruiters certainly have their quotas to meet the services do speak with one another(their offices are often in the same shopping centers right next to one another), ideally helping to place those candidates better suited for one kind of service(both mentally and physically) in that billet. While you're absolutely right the PFTs have different standards for men and women, I think you're making a 1:1 comparison of these fitness requirements to effectiveness in combat situations which I believe to be fallacious. Those standards are meant to test three metrics as a gross measure of strength and endurance. Those benchmarks would most directly relate to is the ability to march for long periods of time with heavy gear on one's person. While this is less of an operational necessity in today's army, it's also important to note the scoring is averaged with minimums in every category, for men and women and have ranges specifically to accommodate varying degrees of strength and stamina, again, in both their male and female military members(soldiers in this case). I think your statement >Any reason other than budget cuts is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. is also fallacious because it assumes the position that women have been excluded from professional military forces because they are actually less effective rather than because of the assumption they are. Women historically were not hunters or warriors in classical societies because it was exceptionally rare for women *not* to fulfill domestic roles as well, thus giving less time to even become proficient at martial activities. As recognition and acceptance of variance from traditional gender roles has become more mainstream, previously conforming personalities are more free to choose lifestyles that are more physical and stereotypically 'male' than before. I think the mindset of women joining the army, especially those seeking out combat-prone positions, is going to be more like that of men seeking those same positions than you are giving them credit. I'm not going to make any arguments regarding any innate ingenuity or balance or other advantages females may have over men; I'm not familiar with documentation asserting one way or the other on those characteristics. However, to once again address the specific criticism of strength and size between the sexes, I'll quote from the Wikipedia article Sex differences in human physiology: >Most differing characteristics will conform to a bell-curve (i.e. normal) distribution which can be broadly described by the mean (peak distribution) and standard deviation (indicator of size of range). Often only the mean or mean difference between sexes is given. This may or may not preclude overlap in distributions. For example, most males are taller and stronger than females,1] but an individual female could be taller and\/or stronger than an individual male. I *will* make the argument that women aren't any less proficient, given comparable training as men, at the use of firearms and other combat tools. For [hand to hand\\(close\\) combat, I agree that all things being equal in training and preparation and fighting style matching, the average male will be superior to an average women given that men are on *average* larger and stronger than women. However, to assume this is the common meeting of bodies is to also assume all enemy soldiers and our soldiers are of the same mould as if they're from an early era FPS game. It also neglects that modern techniques include elements of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, the heart of which is based on the concept of turning an opponent's superior size and strength against him or her, rendering them defeated instead by exploiting mass pain at joints as well as submission. In the case of an actual life or death situation there is no tap out, of course. The hold would simply be held long enough to render the enemy unconscious or dead. Male or female, proper training in technique is critical to having the upper hand in this situation. Regarding morale and cohesiveness of units, there are a great many things which can both bring together groups of people and fracture them apart. Religion, race, ethnicity, age, place of origin in the country are all deeply felt and have all played roles in both problems and solutions in the military. I'm not saying this is your position, but I've heard a similar accusation that men won't be at their optimum fighting state in the event a woman is around, as they'll be distracted or maybe there's going to be some sort of sexual tryst which distracts from missions at hand. I think this, at least superficially, sounds a lot like the argument against having homosexuals in the military and I think that is an assumption on the part of the character and actions of people we don't even know that we are apparently not making on the part of our faceless, monolithic group of acceptable male candidates that presumably make up the combat forces right now. Women can certainly still get pregnant, though even in the Navy it was more than a little bit recommended they choose to get an IUD to avoid this as it can, indeed, be a deep complication to their personal as well as their unit's readiness. I think the way to mitigate this problem, however, is not by simply outright banning women from combat positions, as this is a situation which affects people at every level and position in the military. While combat positions are certainly more of a life or death situation, coming up with training and screening to ensure the candidates who are in these positions, male or female, are focused and gung ho about completing whatever their task currently is is the proper way to address the situation. On the topic of emotional\/psychological readiness, I again default to the Army's preparation of all of their soldiers for combat and it's commonly understood that no one can really say, man or women, how they will really react when shit is hitting the fan and a compound is being overrun, your brothers and now sisters are being gunned down and it's a mad dash to find cover while flash bangs are stunning one's senses. While it's a trope, I'd certainly rather have the screaming, useless and bizarrely feeble man in my platoon swapped out with a more competent woman, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with a feeling of equality between the sex representation of our military. Overall, while I think it is not truly comparable to allowing different races to serve together in units, or allowing gays in the military, I think historically at some point textbooks will be treating them as similar points at which the army dropped artificial barriers to qualified individuals' entry to their ranks. Thanks for your time reading this and if you feel I've made some wrong assumptions or statements, please point them out. If I've offended you at all, I do apologize and please let me know about that as well. Finally, why the heck you gotta post this later in the evening? By the time more people see this tomorrow it's going to be old and potentially not getting as much attention as it deserves.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1463.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"1hajga","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. Equality is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. Any reason other than budget cuts is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. People will lose their lives because our military has become caught up in the grand social experiment that is equalism, and I believe that is indefensible. Prove me wrong and CMV. For reference: Perfect Score for a 52-56 year old male on APFT is 56 pushups\/2m, 66 situps\/2m, 14:42\/2mi Perfect score for a 27-31 year old female on APFT is 50, 82, 15:36","c_root_id_A":"casikn6","c_root_id_B":"casrq6v","created_at_utc_A":1372488116,"created_at_utc_B":1372535382,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"> Perfect Score for a 52-56 year old male on APFT is 56 pushups\/2m, 66 situps\/2m, 14:42\/2mi >Perfect score for a 27-31 year old female on APFT is 50, 82, 15:36 This is a problem. However, if the perfect score (and minimum score, as discussed lower) were made *equal* for both genders, why should a woman who is able to complete the same physical tasks as men who are able to get in, not be able to get in? I don't necessarily believe in doing anything to allow women to get in at an equal rate as men, but those few women who are able to match the same physical standards should be. I believe there is no reasonable way to oppose that belief.","human_ref_B":"If a woman can meet the physical standards set for infantrymen, then it is only sexist prejudice that would not allow her into the infantry. You're judging *all* women to be physically inferior, and you're wrong. But you're absolutely correct in that *most* women will not be physically or mentally qualified for the role, and can perfectly well serve in other roles. But if a woman can meet the standards, the only problem lies with you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":47266.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"1hajga","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. Equality is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. Any reason other than budget cuts is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. People will lose their lives because our military has become caught up in the grand social experiment that is equalism, and I believe that is indefensible. Prove me wrong and CMV. For reference: Perfect Score for a 52-56 year old male on APFT is 56 pushups\/2m, 66 situps\/2m, 14:42\/2mi Perfect score for a 27-31 year old female on APFT is 50, 82, 15:36","c_root_id_A":"casrq6v","c_root_id_B":"casmp9p","created_at_utc_A":1372535382,"created_at_utc_B":1372516680,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If a woman can meet the physical standards set for infantrymen, then it is only sexist prejudice that would not allow her into the infantry. You're judging *all* women to be physically inferior, and you're wrong. But you're absolutely correct in that *most* women will not be physically or mentally qualified for the role, and can perfectly well serve in other roles. But if a woman can meet the standards, the only problem lies with you.","human_ref_B":"I think a major point that you've missed is that women help fill other roles in combat units that men cannot. You have to consider that the areas we are most active in right now are mostly musilm populated areas. In the role of a \"frontline combat soldier\" they actually do a lot more than fighting. They also do a lot of interacting the locals, public relations, providing medical assistance and other services. In musilm countries only women can interact with women without the wearing of a hijab, burka, or whatever the commonly accepted \"modest\" clothing is for the region. By including women into these units, you now allow our troops to interact with the other half of the population. This means healing them, gathering intelligence and other actions. This increases goodwill, and half the battle is knowing where the enemy is, so by doubling the population from whom we can gather intelligence, also greatly increases our combat effectiveness. Remember that our military units have many other actions than fighting","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18702.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"1hajga","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. Equality is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. Any reason other than budget cuts is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. People will lose their lives because our military has become caught up in the grand social experiment that is equalism, and I believe that is indefensible. Prove me wrong and CMV. For reference: Perfect Score for a 52-56 year old male on APFT is 56 pushups\/2m, 66 situps\/2m, 14:42\/2mi Perfect score for a 27-31 year old female on APFT is 50, 82, 15:36","c_root_id_A":"casn0b6","c_root_id_B":"casrq6v","created_at_utc_A":1372518100,"created_at_utc_B":1372535382,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"It's pretty easy to disproof your argument. Your math is wrong. You can't simply compare averages, median or peak values to argue here. The distribution of effectiveness of a strike force is never totally seperated between women and men. Although peak, medians and averages of woman might be less in most cases, there always will be some men worse than some women. Imagine you've got a pool of 10.000 men and want to compile a strike force of 1000 men out of this pool. Although you take the best men you can get, i am going have a better strike force because i am going to choose my 1000 soldiers out of a pool of 10.000 men and 10.000 women. Although the women are on average weaker(or whatever) i am going to find women that are still stronger than the weakest man in your selection and thus creating a stronger strike force than yours.","human_ref_B":"If a woman can meet the physical standards set for infantrymen, then it is only sexist prejudice that would not allow her into the infantry. You're judging *all* women to be physically inferior, and you're wrong. But you're absolutely correct in that *most* women will not be physically or mentally qualified for the role, and can perfectly well serve in other roles. But if a woman can meet the standards, the only problem lies with you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17282.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"1hajga","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. Equality is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. Any reason other than budget cuts is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. People will lose their lives because our military has become caught up in the grand social experiment that is equalism, and I believe that is indefensible. Prove me wrong and CMV. For reference: Perfect Score for a 52-56 year old male on APFT is 56 pushups\/2m, 66 situps\/2m, 14:42\/2mi Perfect score for a 27-31 year old female on APFT is 50, 82, 15:36","c_root_id_A":"casrq6v","c_root_id_B":"caspv31","created_at_utc_A":1372535382,"created_at_utc_B":1372528799,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If a woman can meet the physical standards set for infantrymen, then it is only sexist prejudice that would not allow her into the infantry. You're judging *all* women to be physically inferior, and you're wrong. But you're absolutely correct in that *most* women will not be physically or mentally qualified for the role, and can perfectly well serve in other roles. But if a woman can meet the standards, the only problem lies with you.","human_ref_B":"I think all those Israeli women serving in the IDF would beg to differ.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6583.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyiv60","c_root_id_B":"ciyb4ik","created_at_utc_A":1405468254,"created_at_utc_B":1405453555,"score_A":204,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"The problem is, it's a stunt and will be written as a stunt. Not that I don't have faith in Jason Aaron (he's already established Thor as one of the best titles Marvel is putting out), or that I disagree with Marvel trying to create more female heros. But let's consider Thor's history. Why does Mjolner's enchantment state, \"whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall posses the power of Thor\"? It's not because Odin wanted random mortals (however worthy) to stumble upon incredible power. It's because *he wanted his son to become worthy*. The hammer was always meant to be wielded by Thor; if anyone else can pick it up, that's just an unfortunate side-effect of the enchantment. This is obvious in the old Simonson comics: when Beta Ray Bill manages to pick up Thor's hammer, Odin is *astonished*, and admits he never expected it to happen. And at the end of that storyarc, he *makes sure Thor get's back his hammer*. To summarize: The hammer was never meant to be given to anyone who was worthy. It was meant to remind Thor to always be worthy. So: In this storyarc, Thor somehow becomes unworthy of wielding Mjolner. Someone else (my bet is on Jane Foster, although Thor's granddaughter is also a possibility) finds the hammer, and becomes the new Thor! And what happens to Thor? Well, to be true to the history of the character, Thor is going to have to go on some sort of hero's journey in which he eventually becomes worthy again, and can return to claim Mjolner once more. (The last Avengers issue gave us some bullshit glimpse into the future which suggested Thor still won't be worthy 400 years in the future, but that won't happen. Marvel mucks around with its future all the time, and at best what we saw in Avengers was a *possible* future which Thor will manage to avoid) It has to happen that way, because that is the *purpose* of Mjolner's enchantment. Where will that leave our new Thor? Well, we will perhaps get a year or two of enjoyable stories out of her. After that, the son of Odin will return, the female Thor will be cast aside, and we will all realize that this supposedly progressive female Thor served no purpose except as a foil for the \"true\" male hero. Best case scenario, Odin will forge her another Mjolner (as he did Beta Ray Bill), and she will exist as a minor side character to the Marvel universe. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps she will really be the one true Thor for four hundred years. But Marvel has no problems lying or exaggerating temporary character changes (they said Peter Parker would be dead forever, but that didn't last more than two years). And Superior Spider-Man, the last major hero-replacement, proceeded exactly as I described: two years of enjoyable stories, then the realization that Doctor Octopus is only Spider-Man so that people will cheer when Peter Parker takes his place. So I guess I don't necessarily think it's *bad* so much as meaningless, because it's not going to last. Everything Marvel has ever done points to this ending inside of two years. EDIT: grammar","human_ref_B":"Isn't male, existing thor the only being capable of lifting\/using the hammer that new female thor is supposed to also wield? Additionally, isn't Thor meant to be a specific god-turned superhero? I can understand another person taking on a superhero's mantle, but becoming a specific god seems a bit off. I'm not bothered it's a woman, I see more issues that it's simply a different person.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14699.0,"score_ratio":5.8285714286} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyc8kg","c_root_id_B":"ciyiv60","created_at_utc_A":1405455506,"created_at_utc_B":1405468254,"score_A":34,"score_B":204,"human_ref_A":"My biggest problem with a female Thor is that form-fitting boob armor is a terribly impractical design... she's going to end up with a fractured sternum. I like the design, though. However, I remember a bunch of *other* times when comics with \"strong female characters\" have been borderline softcore porn made for men. It's hard to tell what this is going to be from a character design. If female Thor really *is* written to appeal to women and girls, that's awesome. If this is going to be a repeat of DC's New 52 (which largely alienated female fans), then please, no no no no no. I'm cautiously optimistic, because hey, at least she gets to wear pants. Lady Loki was always cool, too.","human_ref_B":"The problem is, it's a stunt and will be written as a stunt. Not that I don't have faith in Jason Aaron (he's already established Thor as one of the best titles Marvel is putting out), or that I disagree with Marvel trying to create more female heros. But let's consider Thor's history. Why does Mjolner's enchantment state, \"whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall posses the power of Thor\"? It's not because Odin wanted random mortals (however worthy) to stumble upon incredible power. It's because *he wanted his son to become worthy*. The hammer was always meant to be wielded by Thor; if anyone else can pick it up, that's just an unfortunate side-effect of the enchantment. This is obvious in the old Simonson comics: when Beta Ray Bill manages to pick up Thor's hammer, Odin is *astonished*, and admits he never expected it to happen. And at the end of that storyarc, he *makes sure Thor get's back his hammer*. To summarize: The hammer was never meant to be given to anyone who was worthy. It was meant to remind Thor to always be worthy. So: In this storyarc, Thor somehow becomes unworthy of wielding Mjolner. Someone else (my bet is on Jane Foster, although Thor's granddaughter is also a possibility) finds the hammer, and becomes the new Thor! And what happens to Thor? Well, to be true to the history of the character, Thor is going to have to go on some sort of hero's journey in which he eventually becomes worthy again, and can return to claim Mjolner once more. (The last Avengers issue gave us some bullshit glimpse into the future which suggested Thor still won't be worthy 400 years in the future, but that won't happen. Marvel mucks around with its future all the time, and at best what we saw in Avengers was a *possible* future which Thor will manage to avoid) It has to happen that way, because that is the *purpose* of Mjolner's enchantment. Where will that leave our new Thor? Well, we will perhaps get a year or two of enjoyable stories out of her. After that, the son of Odin will return, the female Thor will be cast aside, and we will all realize that this supposedly progressive female Thor served no purpose except as a foil for the \"true\" male hero. Best case scenario, Odin will forge her another Mjolner (as he did Beta Ray Bill), and she will exist as a minor side character to the Marvel universe. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps she will really be the one true Thor for four hundred years. But Marvel has no problems lying or exaggerating temporary character changes (they said Peter Parker would be dead forever, but that didn't last more than two years). And Superior Spider-Man, the last major hero-replacement, proceeded exactly as I described: two years of enjoyable stories, then the realization that Doctor Octopus is only Spider-Man so that people will cheer when Peter Parker takes his place. So I guess I don't necessarily think it's *bad* so much as meaningless, because it's not going to last. Everything Marvel has ever done points to this ending inside of two years. EDIT: grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12748.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyd0q4","c_root_id_B":"ciyiv60","created_at_utc_A":1405456866,"created_at_utc_B":1405468254,"score_A":13,"score_B":204,"human_ref_A":"I think the issue here is more that it's *Thor* than that there's a female superhero. I would love to see more strong female characters who aren't overly sexualised have their own story lines. It would be better if this person was given an original character and identity. Taking the mantle of Thor seems like lazy writing.","human_ref_B":"The problem is, it's a stunt and will be written as a stunt. Not that I don't have faith in Jason Aaron (he's already established Thor as one of the best titles Marvel is putting out), or that I disagree with Marvel trying to create more female heros. But let's consider Thor's history. Why does Mjolner's enchantment state, \"whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall posses the power of Thor\"? It's not because Odin wanted random mortals (however worthy) to stumble upon incredible power. It's because *he wanted his son to become worthy*. The hammer was always meant to be wielded by Thor; if anyone else can pick it up, that's just an unfortunate side-effect of the enchantment. This is obvious in the old Simonson comics: when Beta Ray Bill manages to pick up Thor's hammer, Odin is *astonished*, and admits he never expected it to happen. And at the end of that storyarc, he *makes sure Thor get's back his hammer*. To summarize: The hammer was never meant to be given to anyone who was worthy. It was meant to remind Thor to always be worthy. So: In this storyarc, Thor somehow becomes unworthy of wielding Mjolner. Someone else (my bet is on Jane Foster, although Thor's granddaughter is also a possibility) finds the hammer, and becomes the new Thor! And what happens to Thor? Well, to be true to the history of the character, Thor is going to have to go on some sort of hero's journey in which he eventually becomes worthy again, and can return to claim Mjolner once more. (The last Avengers issue gave us some bullshit glimpse into the future which suggested Thor still won't be worthy 400 years in the future, but that won't happen. Marvel mucks around with its future all the time, and at best what we saw in Avengers was a *possible* future which Thor will manage to avoid) It has to happen that way, because that is the *purpose* of Mjolner's enchantment. Where will that leave our new Thor? Well, we will perhaps get a year or two of enjoyable stories out of her. After that, the son of Odin will return, the female Thor will be cast aside, and we will all realize that this supposedly progressive female Thor served no purpose except as a foil for the \"true\" male hero. Best case scenario, Odin will forge her another Mjolner (as he did Beta Ray Bill), and she will exist as a minor side character to the Marvel universe. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps she will really be the one true Thor for four hundred years. But Marvel has no problems lying or exaggerating temporary character changes (they said Peter Parker would be dead forever, but that didn't last more than two years). And Superior Spider-Man, the last major hero-replacement, proceeded exactly as I described: two years of enjoyable stories, then the realization that Doctor Octopus is only Spider-Man so that people will cheer when Peter Parker takes his place. So I guess I don't necessarily think it's *bad* so much as meaningless, because it's not going to last. Everything Marvel has ever done points to this ending inside of two years. EDIT: grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11388.0,"score_ratio":15.6923076923} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyiv60","c_root_id_B":"ciyiov5","created_at_utc_A":1405468254,"created_at_utc_B":1405467882,"score_A":204,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The problem is, it's a stunt and will be written as a stunt. Not that I don't have faith in Jason Aaron (he's already established Thor as one of the best titles Marvel is putting out), or that I disagree with Marvel trying to create more female heros. But let's consider Thor's history. Why does Mjolner's enchantment state, \"whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall posses the power of Thor\"? It's not because Odin wanted random mortals (however worthy) to stumble upon incredible power. It's because *he wanted his son to become worthy*. The hammer was always meant to be wielded by Thor; if anyone else can pick it up, that's just an unfortunate side-effect of the enchantment. This is obvious in the old Simonson comics: when Beta Ray Bill manages to pick up Thor's hammer, Odin is *astonished*, and admits he never expected it to happen. And at the end of that storyarc, he *makes sure Thor get's back his hammer*. To summarize: The hammer was never meant to be given to anyone who was worthy. It was meant to remind Thor to always be worthy. So: In this storyarc, Thor somehow becomes unworthy of wielding Mjolner. Someone else (my bet is on Jane Foster, although Thor's granddaughter is also a possibility) finds the hammer, and becomes the new Thor! And what happens to Thor? Well, to be true to the history of the character, Thor is going to have to go on some sort of hero's journey in which he eventually becomes worthy again, and can return to claim Mjolner once more. (The last Avengers issue gave us some bullshit glimpse into the future which suggested Thor still won't be worthy 400 years in the future, but that won't happen. Marvel mucks around with its future all the time, and at best what we saw in Avengers was a *possible* future which Thor will manage to avoid) It has to happen that way, because that is the *purpose* of Mjolner's enchantment. Where will that leave our new Thor? Well, we will perhaps get a year or two of enjoyable stories out of her. After that, the son of Odin will return, the female Thor will be cast aside, and we will all realize that this supposedly progressive female Thor served no purpose except as a foil for the \"true\" male hero. Best case scenario, Odin will forge her another Mjolner (as he did Beta Ray Bill), and she will exist as a minor side character to the Marvel universe. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps she will really be the one true Thor for four hundred years. But Marvel has no problems lying or exaggerating temporary character changes (they said Peter Parker would be dead forever, but that didn't last more than two years). And Superior Spider-Man, the last major hero-replacement, proceeded exactly as I described: two years of enjoyable stories, then the realization that Doctor Octopus is only Spider-Man so that people will cheer when Peter Parker takes his place. So I guess I don't necessarily think it's *bad* so much as meaningless, because it's not going to last. Everything Marvel has ever done points to this ending inside of two years. EDIT: grammar","human_ref_B":"If everybody else are allowed to bitch about their culture being appropriated, then I as a Dane get to bitch about Thor and the rest of the Gods and Nordic mythology being appropriated. Now when I image google Thor all kinds of lame cartoons come up; even worse, when I google Ragnarok, some even lamer Japanese girl anime comes up. Thor btw., doubled as a fertility god. That is the male fertility god. Thor or his hammer is sometimes drawn as a swastika.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":372.0,"score_ratio":29.1428571429} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyiv60","c_root_id_B":"ciyhtft","created_at_utc_A":1405468254,"created_at_utc_B":1405466021,"score_A":204,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The problem is, it's a stunt and will be written as a stunt. Not that I don't have faith in Jason Aaron (he's already established Thor as one of the best titles Marvel is putting out), or that I disagree with Marvel trying to create more female heros. But let's consider Thor's history. Why does Mjolner's enchantment state, \"whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall posses the power of Thor\"? It's not because Odin wanted random mortals (however worthy) to stumble upon incredible power. It's because *he wanted his son to become worthy*. The hammer was always meant to be wielded by Thor; if anyone else can pick it up, that's just an unfortunate side-effect of the enchantment. This is obvious in the old Simonson comics: when Beta Ray Bill manages to pick up Thor's hammer, Odin is *astonished*, and admits he never expected it to happen. And at the end of that storyarc, he *makes sure Thor get's back his hammer*. To summarize: The hammer was never meant to be given to anyone who was worthy. It was meant to remind Thor to always be worthy. So: In this storyarc, Thor somehow becomes unworthy of wielding Mjolner. Someone else (my bet is on Jane Foster, although Thor's granddaughter is also a possibility) finds the hammer, and becomes the new Thor! And what happens to Thor? Well, to be true to the history of the character, Thor is going to have to go on some sort of hero's journey in which he eventually becomes worthy again, and can return to claim Mjolner once more. (The last Avengers issue gave us some bullshit glimpse into the future which suggested Thor still won't be worthy 400 years in the future, but that won't happen. Marvel mucks around with its future all the time, and at best what we saw in Avengers was a *possible* future which Thor will manage to avoid) It has to happen that way, because that is the *purpose* of Mjolner's enchantment. Where will that leave our new Thor? Well, we will perhaps get a year or two of enjoyable stories out of her. After that, the son of Odin will return, the female Thor will be cast aside, and we will all realize that this supposedly progressive female Thor served no purpose except as a foil for the \"true\" male hero. Best case scenario, Odin will forge her another Mjolner (as he did Beta Ray Bill), and she will exist as a minor side character to the Marvel universe. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps she will really be the one true Thor for four hundred years. But Marvel has no problems lying or exaggerating temporary character changes (they said Peter Parker would be dead forever, but that didn't last more than two years). And Superior Spider-Man, the last major hero-replacement, proceeded exactly as I described: two years of enjoyable stories, then the realization that Doctor Octopus is only Spider-Man so that people will cheer when Peter Parker takes his place. So I guess I don't necessarily think it's *bad* so much as meaningless, because it's not going to last. Everything Marvel has ever done points to this ending inside of two years. EDIT: grammar","human_ref_B":"Being a bit of a devil's advocate here. It's kind of 'stunt casting' right? They wouldn't have gotten any of this publicity if the new Thor would have just been more of the status quo. One could say she was just introduced so that there would be publicity around her.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2233.0,"score_ratio":40.8} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyiv60","c_root_id_B":"ciyi0ov","created_at_utc_A":1405468254,"created_at_utc_B":1405466453,"score_A":204,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The problem is, it's a stunt and will be written as a stunt. Not that I don't have faith in Jason Aaron (he's already established Thor as one of the best titles Marvel is putting out), or that I disagree with Marvel trying to create more female heros. But let's consider Thor's history. Why does Mjolner's enchantment state, \"whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall posses the power of Thor\"? It's not because Odin wanted random mortals (however worthy) to stumble upon incredible power. It's because *he wanted his son to become worthy*. The hammer was always meant to be wielded by Thor; if anyone else can pick it up, that's just an unfortunate side-effect of the enchantment. This is obvious in the old Simonson comics: when Beta Ray Bill manages to pick up Thor's hammer, Odin is *astonished*, and admits he never expected it to happen. And at the end of that storyarc, he *makes sure Thor get's back his hammer*. To summarize: The hammer was never meant to be given to anyone who was worthy. It was meant to remind Thor to always be worthy. So: In this storyarc, Thor somehow becomes unworthy of wielding Mjolner. Someone else (my bet is on Jane Foster, although Thor's granddaughter is also a possibility) finds the hammer, and becomes the new Thor! And what happens to Thor? Well, to be true to the history of the character, Thor is going to have to go on some sort of hero's journey in which he eventually becomes worthy again, and can return to claim Mjolner once more. (The last Avengers issue gave us some bullshit glimpse into the future which suggested Thor still won't be worthy 400 years in the future, but that won't happen. Marvel mucks around with its future all the time, and at best what we saw in Avengers was a *possible* future which Thor will manage to avoid) It has to happen that way, because that is the *purpose* of Mjolner's enchantment. Where will that leave our new Thor? Well, we will perhaps get a year or two of enjoyable stories out of her. After that, the son of Odin will return, the female Thor will be cast aside, and we will all realize that this supposedly progressive female Thor served no purpose except as a foil for the \"true\" male hero. Best case scenario, Odin will forge her another Mjolner (as he did Beta Ray Bill), and she will exist as a minor side character to the Marvel universe. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps she will really be the one true Thor for four hundred years. But Marvel has no problems lying or exaggerating temporary character changes (they said Peter Parker would be dead forever, but that didn't last more than two years). And Superior Spider-Man, the last major hero-replacement, proceeded exactly as I described: two years of enjoyable stories, then the realization that Doctor Octopus is only Spider-Man so that people will cheer when Peter Parker takes his place. So I guess I don't necessarily think it's *bad* so much as meaningless, because it's not going to last. Everything Marvel has ever done points to this ending inside of two years. EDIT: grammar","human_ref_B":"the problem is it has no purpose, the gender isn't why you watch it. its like making the men in black sequel men in navy blue, sure its possible to do, but that does not mean you should","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1801.0,"score_ratio":40.8} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyiv60","c_root_id_B":"ciyhbzu","created_at_utc_A":1405468254,"created_at_utc_B":1405465030,"score_A":204,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The problem is, it's a stunt and will be written as a stunt. Not that I don't have faith in Jason Aaron (he's already established Thor as one of the best titles Marvel is putting out), or that I disagree with Marvel trying to create more female heros. But let's consider Thor's history. Why does Mjolner's enchantment state, \"whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall posses the power of Thor\"? It's not because Odin wanted random mortals (however worthy) to stumble upon incredible power. It's because *he wanted his son to become worthy*. The hammer was always meant to be wielded by Thor; if anyone else can pick it up, that's just an unfortunate side-effect of the enchantment. This is obvious in the old Simonson comics: when Beta Ray Bill manages to pick up Thor's hammer, Odin is *astonished*, and admits he never expected it to happen. And at the end of that storyarc, he *makes sure Thor get's back his hammer*. To summarize: The hammer was never meant to be given to anyone who was worthy. It was meant to remind Thor to always be worthy. So: In this storyarc, Thor somehow becomes unworthy of wielding Mjolner. Someone else (my bet is on Jane Foster, although Thor's granddaughter is also a possibility) finds the hammer, and becomes the new Thor! And what happens to Thor? Well, to be true to the history of the character, Thor is going to have to go on some sort of hero's journey in which he eventually becomes worthy again, and can return to claim Mjolner once more. (The last Avengers issue gave us some bullshit glimpse into the future which suggested Thor still won't be worthy 400 years in the future, but that won't happen. Marvel mucks around with its future all the time, and at best what we saw in Avengers was a *possible* future which Thor will manage to avoid) It has to happen that way, because that is the *purpose* of Mjolner's enchantment. Where will that leave our new Thor? Well, we will perhaps get a year or two of enjoyable stories out of her. After that, the son of Odin will return, the female Thor will be cast aside, and we will all realize that this supposedly progressive female Thor served no purpose except as a foil for the \"true\" male hero. Best case scenario, Odin will forge her another Mjolner (as he did Beta Ray Bill), and she will exist as a minor side character to the Marvel universe. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps she will really be the one true Thor for four hundred years. But Marvel has no problems lying or exaggerating temporary character changes (they said Peter Parker would be dead forever, but that didn't last more than two years). And Superior Spider-Man, the last major hero-replacement, proceeded exactly as I described: two years of enjoyable stories, then the realization that Doctor Octopus is only Spider-Man so that people will cheer when Peter Parker takes his place. So I guess I don't necessarily think it's *bad* so much as meaningless, because it's not going to last. Everything Marvel has ever done points to this ending inside of two years. EDIT: grammar","human_ref_B":"To me it just seems kind of lazy. I just don't see the reason. Am I upset that Thor is a woman? Not particularly. But I don't understand why they decided to take an existing hero and change them. If they were worried about not having enough strong, female characters, then create a new hero. I guess that's a lot easier said than done, but why take this obviously charged direction when you can avoid all of this **AND** increase the universe\/toy line. This just seems like a copout because some writer or some artist didn't want to take the time to create a whole new character, so let's just make a new Thor. Meh. It definitely looks cool as hell, but if you were that set on using the Thor-esque style and make them female, why not just take Sif and give her her own storyline. Why not choose another Nordic goddess that could just as easily have filled all the criteria of Nordic style, female, and badass. It's just seems lazy and taking male character and making them female doesn't seem like it should make feminists or gender-ist (?) any happier. It's taking an established **MALE** character and just painting them as a woman. They really should have just made a new character that could be used as a strong, not overly sexualized role model for young women.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3224.0,"score_ratio":102.0} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyqi2b","c_root_id_B":"ciyk43n","created_at_utc_A":1405484985,"created_at_utc_B":1405470916,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"My concern is that they're taking a male-originated character (both in the comics and in mythology), and replacing him with a female in order to create a \"strong female character\" rather than taking one of their already-established female characters and fleshing them out more, or even creating an entirely new character. They're trying to show that \"a woman could do this job as well as a man\" rather than showing a woman who can do a job well. It just reeks of laziness in terms of appealing to a broader audience and in trying to shake things up. At least, that's my concern. Edit: expanded a bit further.","human_ref_B":"As a female, I find it grossly insulting to see this sort of thing. Why do we need Thor to be female for us to appreciate the comics? I feel like I'm part of a marketing campaign (and I am). Choices like this make me feel completely alienated. If this was a new character*, I wouldn't have an issue with it. I have an issue with the fact that it feels like a blatant money grab by taking one of the big three and hotswapping genders for a broader audience. *a character with its own series","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14069.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciymvx5","c_root_id_B":"ciyqi2b","created_at_utc_A":1405476812,"created_at_utc_B":1405484985,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"So the only real problem I have with it is how lazy it seems. Thor is a person, not a job. Whoever wields Mjolnir is... the wielder of Mjolnir, upon whom is bestowed the powers which are associated with its original bearer, Thor. The problem I have with this is that Marvel is doing this specifically to convert a not-well-catered to market, females who purchase comics, without putting any real effort in. Instead of actually developing a new character, they're piggybacking off the success of the Thor and Avenger movies to try and convert a deadzone into a cash crop. This is sexpolitation, plain and simple. Thor is not like a Green Lantern (yes from DC but it's a better analogy than any marvel I could think of) and Mjolnir is not a ring. They're essentially rotoscoping the series, or whatever they're doing to justfiy her coming in? Thor's sister or whatever? I dunno. The point is, this is simply a cash grab and not a genuine attempt to put a female character into a heroine roles that's both respected and not as eye-roll-dull as the \"amazonian queen\" Wonder Woman. Think of it this way. How would you feel if Lord of the Rings were re-written to have a female Frodo as a way to sell more copies of the book to girls? It's cheap. There's nothing wrong with female characters. There's nothing wrong with female characters assuming the mantle of male characters when there's a mantle to be worn. Thor isn't a job. He's a guy. If DC wanted to have Tony Stark die in some horrible accident and pepper pots puts on the iron man suit and now she's iron woman, sure great, fine. It's a suit. They're dressing her in the same armor, just with a boob plate! If you want to tell a new version of Batman where Bruce Wayne dies and is replaced by a woman who becomes Batwoman, nice! That sounds pretty good. I'd enjoy reading that. If you wanted to tell a new version of Batman with Bretta Wayne who is just a gender-swap of Bruce, well no. That's not okay. Treating women as human beings (or divine beings in this case) with their own backstories and lineages and struggles, great yes fine. This isn't that (or doesn't seem like it from the limited reading I've done on this in the past 8 minutes since I found out it was a thing). This is a pallet swap with gender instead of color. And pallet swapping is just a lazy way to bilk pennies without doing any real though work.","human_ref_B":"My concern is that they're taking a male-originated character (both in the comics and in mythology), and replacing him with a female in order to create a \"strong female character\" rather than taking one of their already-established female characters and fleshing them out more, or even creating an entirely new character. They're trying to show that \"a woman could do this job as well as a man\" rather than showing a woman who can do a job well. It just reeks of laziness in terms of appealing to a broader audience and in trying to shake things up. At least, that's my concern. Edit: expanded a bit further.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8173.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyodco","c_root_id_B":"ciyqi2b","created_at_utc_A":1405480032,"created_at_utc_B":1405484985,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I'm not going to go into cultural appropriation, because I've always felt that was nonsense, although if you get offended by that, then a female Thor shouldn't get a pass either. The issue with a female Thor is that it makes absolutely no sense and is clearly just a gimmick. Thor isn't a job, or a title. It's not even a superhero identity like Daredevil or The Punisher. Thor is the guy's name. Imagine how stupid this would sound: \"Marvel is pleased to announce the new Black Cat! For the first time ever, Felicia Hardy will be a man\" This is just pandering, the fact that it was unveiled on The View should make that evident enough. Marvel could have created a new female superhero that finds Mjolnir, but they are trying to generate controversy.","human_ref_B":"My concern is that they're taking a male-originated character (both in the comics and in mythology), and replacing him with a female in order to create a \"strong female character\" rather than taking one of their already-established female characters and fleshing them out more, or even creating an entirely new character. They're trying to show that \"a woman could do this job as well as a man\" rather than showing a woman who can do a job well. It just reeks of laziness in terms of appealing to a broader audience and in trying to shake things up. At least, that's my concern. Edit: expanded a bit further.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4953.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyqi2b","c_root_id_B":"ciyhtft","created_at_utc_A":1405484985,"created_at_utc_B":1405466021,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"My concern is that they're taking a male-originated character (both in the comics and in mythology), and replacing him with a female in order to create a \"strong female character\" rather than taking one of their already-established female characters and fleshing them out more, or even creating an entirely new character. They're trying to show that \"a woman could do this job as well as a man\" rather than showing a woman who can do a job well. It just reeks of laziness in terms of appealing to a broader audience and in trying to shake things up. At least, that's my concern. Edit: expanded a bit further.","human_ref_B":"Being a bit of a devil's advocate here. It's kind of 'stunt casting' right? They wouldn't have gotten any of this publicity if the new Thor would have just been more of the status quo. One could say she was just introduced so that there would be publicity around her.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18964.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyi0ov","c_root_id_B":"ciyqi2b","created_at_utc_A":1405466453,"created_at_utc_B":1405484985,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"the problem is it has no purpose, the gender isn't why you watch it. its like making the men in black sequel men in navy blue, sure its possible to do, but that does not mean you should","human_ref_B":"My concern is that they're taking a male-originated character (both in the comics and in mythology), and replacing him with a female in order to create a \"strong female character\" rather than taking one of their already-established female characters and fleshing them out more, or even creating an entirely new character. They're trying to show that \"a woman could do this job as well as a man\" rather than showing a woman who can do a job well. It just reeks of laziness in terms of appealing to a broader audience and in trying to shake things up. At least, that's my concern. Edit: expanded a bit further.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18532.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyhbzu","c_root_id_B":"ciyqi2b","created_at_utc_A":1405465030,"created_at_utc_B":1405484985,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"To me it just seems kind of lazy. I just don't see the reason. Am I upset that Thor is a woman? Not particularly. But I don't understand why they decided to take an existing hero and change them. If they were worried about not having enough strong, female characters, then create a new hero. I guess that's a lot easier said than done, but why take this obviously charged direction when you can avoid all of this **AND** increase the universe\/toy line. This just seems like a copout because some writer or some artist didn't want to take the time to create a whole new character, so let's just make a new Thor. Meh. It definitely looks cool as hell, but if you were that set on using the Thor-esque style and make them female, why not just take Sif and give her her own storyline. Why not choose another Nordic goddess that could just as easily have filled all the criteria of Nordic style, female, and badass. It's just seems lazy and taking male character and making them female doesn't seem like it should make feminists or gender-ist (?) any happier. It's taking an established **MALE** character and just painting them as a woman. They really should have just made a new character that could be used as a strong, not overly sexualized role model for young women.","human_ref_B":"My concern is that they're taking a male-originated character (both in the comics and in mythology), and replacing him with a female in order to create a \"strong female character\" rather than taking one of their already-established female characters and fleshing them out more, or even creating an entirely new character. They're trying to show that \"a woman could do this job as well as a man\" rather than showing a woman who can do a job well. It just reeks of laziness in terms of appealing to a broader audience and in trying to shake things up. At least, that's my concern. Edit: expanded a bit further.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19955.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyiov5","c_root_id_B":"ciyhtft","created_at_utc_A":1405467882,"created_at_utc_B":1405466021,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If everybody else are allowed to bitch about their culture being appropriated, then I as a Dane get to bitch about Thor and the rest of the Gods and Nordic mythology being appropriated. Now when I image google Thor all kinds of lame cartoons come up; even worse, when I google Ragnarok, some even lamer Japanese girl anime comes up. Thor btw., doubled as a fertility god. That is the male fertility god. Thor or his hammer is sometimes drawn as a swastika.","human_ref_B":"Being a bit of a devil's advocate here. It's kind of 'stunt casting' right? They wouldn't have gotten any of this publicity if the new Thor would have just been more of the status quo. One could say she was just introduced so that there would be publicity around her.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1861.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyi0ov","c_root_id_B":"ciyiov5","created_at_utc_A":1405466453,"created_at_utc_B":1405467882,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"the problem is it has no purpose, the gender isn't why you watch it. its like making the men in black sequel men in navy blue, sure its possible to do, but that does not mean you should","human_ref_B":"If everybody else are allowed to bitch about their culture being appropriated, then I as a Dane get to bitch about Thor and the rest of the Gods and Nordic mythology being appropriated. Now when I image google Thor all kinds of lame cartoons come up; even worse, when I google Ragnarok, some even lamer Japanese girl anime comes up. Thor btw., doubled as a fertility god. That is the male fertility god. Thor or his hammer is sometimes drawn as a swastika.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1429.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyiov5","c_root_id_B":"ciyhbzu","created_at_utc_A":1405467882,"created_at_utc_B":1405465030,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If everybody else are allowed to bitch about their culture being appropriated, then I as a Dane get to bitch about Thor and the rest of the Gods and Nordic mythology being appropriated. Now when I image google Thor all kinds of lame cartoons come up; even worse, when I google Ragnarok, some even lamer Japanese girl anime comes up. Thor btw., doubled as a fertility god. That is the male fertility god. Thor or his hammer is sometimes drawn as a swastika.","human_ref_B":"To me it just seems kind of lazy. I just don't see the reason. Am I upset that Thor is a woman? Not particularly. But I don't understand why they decided to take an existing hero and change them. If they were worried about not having enough strong, female characters, then create a new hero. I guess that's a lot easier said than done, but why take this obviously charged direction when you can avoid all of this **AND** increase the universe\/toy line. This just seems like a copout because some writer or some artist didn't want to take the time to create a whole new character, so let's just make a new Thor. Meh. It definitely looks cool as hell, but if you were that set on using the Thor-esque style and make them female, why not just take Sif and give her her own storyline. Why not choose another Nordic goddess that could just as easily have filled all the criteria of Nordic style, female, and badass. It's just seems lazy and taking male character and making them female doesn't seem like it should make feminists or gender-ist (?) any happier. It's taking an established **MALE** character and just painting them as a woman. They really should have just made a new character that could be used as a strong, not overly sexualized role model for young women.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2852.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyk43n","c_root_id_B":"ciyhtft","created_at_utc_A":1405470916,"created_at_utc_B":1405466021,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"As a female, I find it grossly insulting to see this sort of thing. Why do we need Thor to be female for us to appreciate the comics? I feel like I'm part of a marketing campaign (and I am). Choices like this make me feel completely alienated. If this was a new character*, I wouldn't have an issue with it. I have an issue with the fact that it feels like a blatant money grab by taking one of the big three and hotswapping genders for a broader audience. *a character with its own series","human_ref_B":"Being a bit of a devil's advocate here. It's kind of 'stunt casting' right? They wouldn't have gotten any of this publicity if the new Thor would have just been more of the status quo. One could say she was just introduced so that there would be publicity around her.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4895.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyi0ov","c_root_id_B":"ciyk43n","created_at_utc_A":1405466453,"created_at_utc_B":1405470916,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"the problem is it has no purpose, the gender isn't why you watch it. its like making the men in black sequel men in navy blue, sure its possible to do, but that does not mean you should","human_ref_B":"As a female, I find it grossly insulting to see this sort of thing. Why do we need Thor to be female for us to appreciate the comics? I feel like I'm part of a marketing campaign (and I am). Choices like this make me feel completely alienated. If this was a new character*, I wouldn't have an issue with it. I have an issue with the fact that it feels like a blatant money grab by taking one of the big three and hotswapping genders for a broader audience. *a character with its own series","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4463.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyhbzu","c_root_id_B":"ciyk43n","created_at_utc_A":1405465030,"created_at_utc_B":1405470916,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"To me it just seems kind of lazy. I just don't see the reason. Am I upset that Thor is a woman? Not particularly. But I don't understand why they decided to take an existing hero and change them. If they were worried about not having enough strong, female characters, then create a new hero. I guess that's a lot easier said than done, but why take this obviously charged direction when you can avoid all of this **AND** increase the universe\/toy line. This just seems like a copout because some writer or some artist didn't want to take the time to create a whole new character, so let's just make a new Thor. Meh. It definitely looks cool as hell, but if you were that set on using the Thor-esque style and make them female, why not just take Sif and give her her own storyline. Why not choose another Nordic goddess that could just as easily have filled all the criteria of Nordic style, female, and badass. It's just seems lazy and taking male character and making them female doesn't seem like it should make feminists or gender-ist (?) any happier. It's taking an established **MALE** character and just painting them as a woman. They really should have just made a new character that could be used as a strong, not overly sexualized role model for young women.","human_ref_B":"As a female, I find it grossly insulting to see this sort of thing. Why do we need Thor to be female for us to appreciate the comics? I feel like I'm part of a marketing campaign (and I am). Choices like this make me feel completely alienated. If this was a new character*, I wouldn't have an issue with it. I have an issue with the fact that it feels like a blatant money grab by taking one of the big three and hotswapping genders for a broader audience. *a character with its own series","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5886.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciymvx5","c_root_id_B":"ciyodco","created_at_utc_A":1405476812,"created_at_utc_B":1405480032,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"So the only real problem I have with it is how lazy it seems. Thor is a person, not a job. Whoever wields Mjolnir is... the wielder of Mjolnir, upon whom is bestowed the powers which are associated with its original bearer, Thor. The problem I have with this is that Marvel is doing this specifically to convert a not-well-catered to market, females who purchase comics, without putting any real effort in. Instead of actually developing a new character, they're piggybacking off the success of the Thor and Avenger movies to try and convert a deadzone into a cash crop. This is sexpolitation, plain and simple. Thor is not like a Green Lantern (yes from DC but it's a better analogy than any marvel I could think of) and Mjolnir is not a ring. They're essentially rotoscoping the series, or whatever they're doing to justfiy her coming in? Thor's sister or whatever? I dunno. The point is, this is simply a cash grab and not a genuine attempt to put a female character into a heroine roles that's both respected and not as eye-roll-dull as the \"amazonian queen\" Wonder Woman. Think of it this way. How would you feel if Lord of the Rings were re-written to have a female Frodo as a way to sell more copies of the book to girls? It's cheap. There's nothing wrong with female characters. There's nothing wrong with female characters assuming the mantle of male characters when there's a mantle to be worn. Thor isn't a job. He's a guy. If DC wanted to have Tony Stark die in some horrible accident and pepper pots puts on the iron man suit and now she's iron woman, sure great, fine. It's a suit. They're dressing her in the same armor, just with a boob plate! If you want to tell a new version of Batman where Bruce Wayne dies and is replaced by a woman who becomes Batwoman, nice! That sounds pretty good. I'd enjoy reading that. If you wanted to tell a new version of Batman with Bretta Wayne who is just a gender-swap of Bruce, well no. That's not okay. Treating women as human beings (or divine beings in this case) with their own backstories and lineages and struggles, great yes fine. This isn't that (or doesn't seem like it from the limited reading I've done on this in the past 8 minutes since I found out it was a thing). This is a pallet swap with gender instead of color. And pallet swapping is just a lazy way to bilk pennies without doing any real though work.","human_ref_B":"I'm not going to go into cultural appropriation, because I've always felt that was nonsense, although if you get offended by that, then a female Thor shouldn't get a pass either. The issue with a female Thor is that it makes absolutely no sense and is clearly just a gimmick. Thor isn't a job, or a title. It's not even a superhero identity like Daredevil or The Punisher. Thor is the guy's name. Imagine how stupid this would sound: \"Marvel is pleased to announce the new Black Cat! For the first time ever, Felicia Hardy will be a man\" This is just pandering, the fact that it was unveiled on The View should make that evident enough. Marvel could have created a new female superhero that finds Mjolnir, but they are trying to generate controversy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3220.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyhbzu","c_root_id_B":"ciymvx5","created_at_utc_A":1405465030,"created_at_utc_B":1405476812,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"To me it just seems kind of lazy. I just don't see the reason. Am I upset that Thor is a woman? Not particularly. But I don't understand why they decided to take an existing hero and change them. If they were worried about not having enough strong, female characters, then create a new hero. I guess that's a lot easier said than done, but why take this obviously charged direction when you can avoid all of this **AND** increase the universe\/toy line. This just seems like a copout because some writer or some artist didn't want to take the time to create a whole new character, so let's just make a new Thor. Meh. It definitely looks cool as hell, but if you were that set on using the Thor-esque style and make them female, why not just take Sif and give her her own storyline. Why not choose another Nordic goddess that could just as easily have filled all the criteria of Nordic style, female, and badass. It's just seems lazy and taking male character and making them female doesn't seem like it should make feminists or gender-ist (?) any happier. It's taking an established **MALE** character and just painting them as a woman. They really should have just made a new character that could be used as a strong, not overly sexualized role model for young women.","human_ref_B":"So the only real problem I have with it is how lazy it seems. Thor is a person, not a job. Whoever wields Mjolnir is... the wielder of Mjolnir, upon whom is bestowed the powers which are associated with its original bearer, Thor. The problem I have with this is that Marvel is doing this specifically to convert a not-well-catered to market, females who purchase comics, without putting any real effort in. Instead of actually developing a new character, they're piggybacking off the success of the Thor and Avenger movies to try and convert a deadzone into a cash crop. This is sexpolitation, plain and simple. Thor is not like a Green Lantern (yes from DC but it's a better analogy than any marvel I could think of) and Mjolnir is not a ring. They're essentially rotoscoping the series, or whatever they're doing to justfiy her coming in? Thor's sister or whatever? I dunno. The point is, this is simply a cash grab and not a genuine attempt to put a female character into a heroine roles that's both respected and not as eye-roll-dull as the \"amazonian queen\" Wonder Woman. Think of it this way. How would you feel if Lord of the Rings were re-written to have a female Frodo as a way to sell more copies of the book to girls? It's cheap. There's nothing wrong with female characters. There's nothing wrong with female characters assuming the mantle of male characters when there's a mantle to be worn. Thor isn't a job. He's a guy. If DC wanted to have Tony Stark die in some horrible accident and pepper pots puts on the iron man suit and now she's iron woman, sure great, fine. It's a suit. They're dressing her in the same armor, just with a boob plate! If you want to tell a new version of Batman where Bruce Wayne dies and is replaced by a woman who becomes Batwoman, nice! That sounds pretty good. I'd enjoy reading that. If you wanted to tell a new version of Batman with Bretta Wayne who is just a gender-swap of Bruce, well no. That's not okay. Treating women as human beings (or divine beings in this case) with their own backstories and lineages and struggles, great yes fine. This isn't that (or doesn't seem like it from the limited reading I've done on this in the past 8 minutes since I found out it was a thing). This is a pallet swap with gender instead of color. And pallet swapping is just a lazy way to bilk pennies without doing any real though work.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11782.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyhtft","c_root_id_B":"ciyodco","created_at_utc_A":1405466021,"created_at_utc_B":1405480032,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Being a bit of a devil's advocate here. It's kind of 'stunt casting' right? They wouldn't have gotten any of this publicity if the new Thor would have just been more of the status quo. One could say she was just introduced so that there would be publicity around her.","human_ref_B":"I'm not going to go into cultural appropriation, because I've always felt that was nonsense, although if you get offended by that, then a female Thor shouldn't get a pass either. The issue with a female Thor is that it makes absolutely no sense and is clearly just a gimmick. Thor isn't a job, or a title. It's not even a superhero identity like Daredevil or The Punisher. Thor is the guy's name. Imagine how stupid this would sound: \"Marvel is pleased to announce the new Black Cat! For the first time ever, Felicia Hardy will be a man\" This is just pandering, the fact that it was unveiled on The View should make that evident enough. Marvel could have created a new female superhero that finds Mjolnir, but they are trying to generate controversy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14011.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyi0ov","c_root_id_B":"ciyodco","created_at_utc_A":1405466453,"created_at_utc_B":1405480032,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"the problem is it has no purpose, the gender isn't why you watch it. its like making the men in black sequel men in navy blue, sure its possible to do, but that does not mean you should","human_ref_B":"I'm not going to go into cultural appropriation, because I've always felt that was nonsense, although if you get offended by that, then a female Thor shouldn't get a pass either. The issue with a female Thor is that it makes absolutely no sense and is clearly just a gimmick. Thor isn't a job, or a title. It's not even a superhero identity like Daredevil or The Punisher. Thor is the guy's name. Imagine how stupid this would sound: \"Marvel is pleased to announce the new Black Cat! For the first time ever, Felicia Hardy will be a man\" This is just pandering, the fact that it was unveiled on The View should make that evident enough. Marvel could have created a new female superhero that finds Mjolnir, but they are trying to generate controversy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13579.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyodco","c_root_id_B":"ciyhbzu","created_at_utc_A":1405480032,"created_at_utc_B":1405465030,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm not going to go into cultural appropriation, because I've always felt that was nonsense, although if you get offended by that, then a female Thor shouldn't get a pass either. The issue with a female Thor is that it makes absolutely no sense and is clearly just a gimmick. Thor isn't a job, or a title. It's not even a superhero identity like Daredevil or The Punisher. Thor is the guy's name. Imagine how stupid this would sound: \"Marvel is pleased to announce the new Black Cat! For the first time ever, Felicia Hardy will be a man\" This is just pandering, the fact that it was unveiled on The View should make that evident enough. Marvel could have created a new female superhero that finds Mjolnir, but they are trying to generate controversy.","human_ref_B":"To me it just seems kind of lazy. I just don't see the reason. Am I upset that Thor is a woman? Not particularly. But I don't understand why they decided to take an existing hero and change them. If they were worried about not having enough strong, female characters, then create a new hero. I guess that's a lot easier said than done, but why take this obviously charged direction when you can avoid all of this **AND** increase the universe\/toy line. This just seems like a copout because some writer or some artist didn't want to take the time to create a whole new character, so let's just make a new Thor. Meh. It definitely looks cool as hell, but if you were that set on using the Thor-esque style and make them female, why not just take Sif and give her her own storyline. Why not choose another Nordic goddess that could just as easily have filled all the criteria of Nordic style, female, and badass. It's just seems lazy and taking male character and making them female doesn't seem like it should make feminists or gender-ist (?) any happier. It's taking an established **MALE** character and just painting them as a woman. They really should have just made a new character that could be used as a strong, not overly sexualized role model for young women.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15002.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyhtft","c_root_id_B":"ciyhbzu","created_at_utc_A":1405466021,"created_at_utc_B":1405465030,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Being a bit of a devil's advocate here. It's kind of 'stunt casting' right? They wouldn't have gotten any of this publicity if the new Thor would have just been more of the status quo. One could say she was just introduced so that there would be publicity around her.","human_ref_B":"To me it just seems kind of lazy. I just don't see the reason. Am I upset that Thor is a woman? Not particularly. But I don't understand why they decided to take an existing hero and change them. If they were worried about not having enough strong, female characters, then create a new hero. I guess that's a lot easier said than done, but why take this obviously charged direction when you can avoid all of this **AND** increase the universe\/toy line. This just seems like a copout because some writer or some artist didn't want to take the time to create a whole new character, so let's just make a new Thor. Meh. It definitely looks cool as hell, but if you were that set on using the Thor-esque style and make them female, why not just take Sif and give her her own storyline. Why not choose another Nordic goddess that could just as easily have filled all the criteria of Nordic style, female, and badass. It's just seems lazy and taking male character and making them female doesn't seem like it should make feminists or gender-ist (?) any happier. It's taking an established **MALE** character and just painting them as a woman. They really should have just made a new character that could be used as a strong, not overly sexualized role model for young women.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":991.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"2ashah","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: I don't think that there's anything wrong with the new Thor being a woman For those who don't know, Marvel today announced plans for a new Thor comic book starring a female Thor. To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their Thor subscriptions. I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually Thor himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of Thor (not entirely unlike Beta Ray Bill). Second, even if this new female Thor does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman Thor incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male Thor is? I think not. Would a woman Thor be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be \"different,\" but different isn't always bad, and if this new Thor is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if Thor is a man or a woman. One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less \"male-oriented\" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*). So yeah. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"ciyi0ov","c_root_id_B":"ciyhbzu","created_at_utc_A":1405466453,"created_at_utc_B":1405465030,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"the problem is it has no purpose, the gender isn't why you watch it. its like making the men in black sequel men in navy blue, sure its possible to do, but that does not mean you should","human_ref_B":"To me it just seems kind of lazy. I just don't see the reason. Am I upset that Thor is a woman? Not particularly. But I don't understand why they decided to take an existing hero and change them. If they were worried about not having enough strong, female characters, then create a new hero. I guess that's a lot easier said than done, but why take this obviously charged direction when you can avoid all of this **AND** increase the universe\/toy line. This just seems like a copout because some writer or some artist didn't want to take the time to create a whole new character, so let's just make a new Thor. Meh. It definitely looks cool as hell, but if you were that set on using the Thor-esque style and make them female, why not just take Sif and give her her own storyline. Why not choose another Nordic goddess that could just as easily have filled all the criteria of Nordic style, female, and badass. It's just seems lazy and taking male character and making them female doesn't seem like it should make feminists or gender-ist (?) any happier. It's taking an established **MALE** character and just painting them as a woman. They really should have just made a new character that could be used as a strong, not overly sexualized role model for young women.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1423.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"7cx30d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: \"Liberal\" being used as an insult or a label is immensely toxic. Its a problem. Howdy, I have been fascinated by and really digging into U.S national politics since 2012. Though this is such a short time, its is an opinion I have grown a little passionate about over the past couple years. Recently Its been very difficult to not be thorny about this when people close to me reference \"liberals\" while talking about national politics in broad strokes. Reasoning: \"Liberal\" being used as a pejorative and also a label really muddies the water and creates divisive undertones to an otherwise normal political discussion or commentary. Its an empty word for anyone to describe others too left of their political ideas. Its seeped into descriptions of universities, doctors, students, minorities, scientists, media, protesters. I want to emphasize the connection Democrat = Liberals is a connection also too easily made along with the previously mentioned. All of this combined just makes it too widely relate-able to people and too widely applicable to schools of thought. It erodes and has helped erode respect for very fundamental ideas and people, therefore, toxic. Or maybe i need to stop following so many political-right pundits... _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dptcegm","c_root_id_B":"dptbkra","created_at_utc_A":1510682345,"created_at_utc_B":1510681569,"score_A":16,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"The baseline is that any concept can be used as a pejorative. \"Smart\", \"educated\", \"pretty\", \"woman\", \"rich\" or \"tolerant\". I see! you're on of those ______! At least I'm not ________! The argument implies \"I'm a cool person because I am not *label*. If you are not *label*, you're not cool.\" We cannot stop someone from using labels as pejoratives. What we can do is call them out on it. Ask \"what do you mean? \" if they refuse to awnser,, it's a lost cause. If they awnser, it gives you an oppotunity to rebuke.","human_ref_B":"People will always find ways to pejoratively label the perceived outgroup\/villain of their political narratives. When I was growing up, the phrase of choice was \"white, Christian male\" and how they ruined literally everything. Before that, we had hippies and commies, and right now we have lots of \"Nazis\" and alt-right labels being thrown around. This, unfortunately, is just par for the course with politics. It's not helpful, it is divisive, but I don't see it going away . . . ever.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":776.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"7cx30d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: \"Liberal\" being used as an insult or a label is immensely toxic. Its a problem. Howdy, I have been fascinated by and really digging into U.S national politics since 2012. Though this is such a short time, its is an opinion I have grown a little passionate about over the past couple years. Recently Its been very difficult to not be thorny about this when people close to me reference \"liberals\" while talking about national politics in broad strokes. Reasoning: \"Liberal\" being used as a pejorative and also a label really muddies the water and creates divisive undertones to an otherwise normal political discussion or commentary. Its an empty word for anyone to describe others too left of their political ideas. Its seeped into descriptions of universities, doctors, students, minorities, scientists, media, protesters. I want to emphasize the connection Democrat = Liberals is a connection also too easily made along with the previously mentioned. All of this combined just makes it too widely relate-able to people and too widely applicable to schools of thought. It erodes and has helped erode respect for very fundamental ideas and people, therefore, toxic. Or maybe i need to stop following so many political-right pundits... _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dptcegm","c_root_id_B":"dpta5a8","created_at_utc_A":1510682345,"created_at_utc_B":1510680239,"score_A":16,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The baseline is that any concept can be used as a pejorative. \"Smart\", \"educated\", \"pretty\", \"woman\", \"rich\" or \"tolerant\". I see! you're on of those ______! At least I'm not ________! The argument implies \"I'm a cool person because I am not *label*. If you are not *label*, you're not cool.\" We cannot stop someone from using labels as pejoratives. What we can do is call them out on it. Ask \"what do you mean? \" if they refuse to awnser,, it's a lost cause. If they awnser, it gives you an oppotunity to rebuke.","human_ref_B":"What word would you prefer these pundits to use, and why would using any other word make a difference?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2106.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"7cx30d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: \"Liberal\" being used as an insult or a label is immensely toxic. Its a problem. Howdy, I have been fascinated by and really digging into U.S national politics since 2012. Though this is such a short time, its is an opinion I have grown a little passionate about over the past couple years. Recently Its been very difficult to not be thorny about this when people close to me reference \"liberals\" while talking about national politics in broad strokes. Reasoning: \"Liberal\" being used as a pejorative and also a label really muddies the water and creates divisive undertones to an otherwise normal political discussion or commentary. Its an empty word for anyone to describe others too left of their political ideas. Its seeped into descriptions of universities, doctors, students, minorities, scientists, media, protesters. I want to emphasize the connection Democrat = Liberals is a connection also too easily made along with the previously mentioned. All of this combined just makes it too widely relate-able to people and too widely applicable to schools of thought. It erodes and has helped erode respect for very fundamental ideas and people, therefore, toxic. Or maybe i need to stop following so many political-right pundits... _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dptbkra","c_root_id_B":"dpta5a8","created_at_utc_A":1510681569,"created_at_utc_B":1510680239,"score_A":12,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"People will always find ways to pejoratively label the perceived outgroup\/villain of their political narratives. When I was growing up, the phrase of choice was \"white, Christian male\" and how they ruined literally everything. Before that, we had hippies and commies, and right now we have lots of \"Nazis\" and alt-right labels being thrown around. This, unfortunately, is just par for the course with politics. It's not helpful, it is divisive, but I don't see it going away . . . ever.","human_ref_B":"What word would you prefer these pundits to use, and why would using any other word make a difference?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1330.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"7cx30d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: \"Liberal\" being used as an insult or a label is immensely toxic. Its a problem. Howdy, I have been fascinated by and really digging into U.S national politics since 2012. Though this is such a short time, its is an opinion I have grown a little passionate about over the past couple years. Recently Its been very difficult to not be thorny about this when people close to me reference \"liberals\" while talking about national politics in broad strokes. Reasoning: \"Liberal\" being used as a pejorative and also a label really muddies the water and creates divisive undertones to an otherwise normal political discussion or commentary. Its an empty word for anyone to describe others too left of their political ideas. Its seeped into descriptions of universities, doctors, students, minorities, scientists, media, protesters. I want to emphasize the connection Democrat = Liberals is a connection also too easily made along with the previously mentioned. All of this combined just makes it too widely relate-able to people and too widely applicable to schools of thought. It erodes and has helped erode respect for very fundamental ideas and people, therefore, toxic. Or maybe i need to stop following so many political-right pundits... _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dptggdn","c_root_id_B":"dpta5a8","created_at_utc_A":1510686154,"created_at_utc_B":1510680239,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think the issue is people misunderstand what a liberal is. Often what they mean to say is 'progressive'. EG - When debating 'punch a nazi' type 1st amendment issues, conservatives will say 'liberals want to take away your 1st amendment rights' when in fact defending free speech rights is the cornerstone of the liberal ideology. People don't mind when Democrats do things that are liberal. It's the progressive side that is the issue. There just needs to be better messaging to separate liberalism from progressivism, as these two ideologies are in direct conflict with one another. It's similar to how conservatism needs to be better at separating itself from the alt-right, as both of these ideologies are also in direct conflict with one another (because alt-right values collectivism over individualism).","human_ref_B":"What word would you prefer these pundits to use, and why would using any other word make a difference?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5915.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"7cx30d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: \"Liberal\" being used as an insult or a label is immensely toxic. Its a problem. Howdy, I have been fascinated by and really digging into U.S national politics since 2012. Though this is such a short time, its is an opinion I have grown a little passionate about over the past couple years. Recently Its been very difficult to not be thorny about this when people close to me reference \"liberals\" while talking about national politics in broad strokes. Reasoning: \"Liberal\" being used as a pejorative and also a label really muddies the water and creates divisive undertones to an otherwise normal political discussion or commentary. Its an empty word for anyone to describe others too left of their political ideas. Its seeped into descriptions of universities, doctors, students, minorities, scientists, media, protesters. I want to emphasize the connection Democrat = Liberals is a connection also too easily made along with the previously mentioned. All of this combined just makes it too widely relate-able to people and too widely applicable to schools of thought. It erodes and has helped erode respect for very fundamental ideas and people, therefore, toxic. Or maybe i need to stop following so many political-right pundits... _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dptggdn","c_root_id_B":"dptcjdb","created_at_utc_A":1510686154,"created_at_utc_B":1510682473,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think the issue is people misunderstand what a liberal is. Often what they mean to say is 'progressive'. EG - When debating 'punch a nazi' type 1st amendment issues, conservatives will say 'liberals want to take away your 1st amendment rights' when in fact defending free speech rights is the cornerstone of the liberal ideology. People don't mind when Democrats do things that are liberal. It's the progressive side that is the issue. There just needs to be better messaging to separate liberalism from progressivism, as these two ideologies are in direct conflict with one another. It's similar to how conservatism needs to be better at separating itself from the alt-right, as both of these ideologies are also in direct conflict with one another (because alt-right values collectivism over individualism).","human_ref_B":"What if I believe liberal policies are harmful? Is it equally toxic to use Nazi as an insult? If you genuinely disagree with an ideology and believe it is harmful, it is perfectly normal behavior to speak of it with distain and disrespect. You may disagree with the opinion behind the disrespect (especially if you are part of the rejected group), but the behavior should be expected.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3681.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"7cx30d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: \"Liberal\" being used as an insult or a label is immensely toxic. Its a problem. Howdy, I have been fascinated by and really digging into U.S national politics since 2012. Though this is such a short time, its is an opinion I have grown a little passionate about over the past couple years. Recently Its been very difficult to not be thorny about this when people close to me reference \"liberals\" while talking about national politics in broad strokes. Reasoning: \"Liberal\" being used as a pejorative and also a label really muddies the water and creates divisive undertones to an otherwise normal political discussion or commentary. Its an empty word for anyone to describe others too left of their political ideas. Its seeped into descriptions of universities, doctors, students, minorities, scientists, media, protesters. I want to emphasize the connection Democrat = Liberals is a connection also too easily made along with the previously mentioned. All of this combined just makes it too widely relate-able to people and too widely applicable to schools of thought. It erodes and has helped erode respect for very fundamental ideas and people, therefore, toxic. Or maybe i need to stop following so many political-right pundits... _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dptt9vw","c_root_id_B":"dpta5a8","created_at_utc_A":1510698403,"created_at_utc_B":1510680239,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I feel like you are missing a big chunk of the history of the word \"liberal\" in US politics. Liberal has long been used as an insult. It's just that you used to hear it from the left rather than the right. *See* Phil Ochs \"Love me, I'm a Liberal\" - lyrics here. When you look through a longer historical lense you can see that this is not a new thing, or somehow unique to the modern moment.","human_ref_B":"What word would you prefer these pundits to use, and why would using any other word make a difference?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18164.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"7cx30d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: \"Liberal\" being used as an insult or a label is immensely toxic. Its a problem. Howdy, I have been fascinated by and really digging into U.S national politics since 2012. Though this is such a short time, its is an opinion I have grown a little passionate about over the past couple years. Recently Its been very difficult to not be thorny about this when people close to me reference \"liberals\" while talking about national politics in broad strokes. Reasoning: \"Liberal\" being used as a pejorative and also a label really muddies the water and creates divisive undertones to an otherwise normal political discussion or commentary. Its an empty word for anyone to describe others too left of their political ideas. Its seeped into descriptions of universities, doctors, students, minorities, scientists, media, protesters. I want to emphasize the connection Democrat = Liberals is a connection also too easily made along with the previously mentioned. All of this combined just makes it too widely relate-able to people and too widely applicable to schools of thought. It erodes and has helped erode respect for very fundamental ideas and people, therefore, toxic. Or maybe i need to stop following so many political-right pundits... _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dptt9vw","c_root_id_B":"dptcjdb","created_at_utc_A":1510698403,"created_at_utc_B":1510682473,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I feel like you are missing a big chunk of the history of the word \"liberal\" in US politics. Liberal has long been used as an insult. It's just that you used to hear it from the left rather than the right. *See* Phil Ochs \"Love me, I'm a Liberal\" - lyrics here. When you look through a longer historical lense you can see that this is not a new thing, or somehow unique to the modern moment.","human_ref_B":"What if I believe liberal policies are harmful? Is it equally toxic to use Nazi as an insult? If you genuinely disagree with an ideology and believe it is harmful, it is perfectly normal behavior to speak of it with distain and disrespect. You may disagree with the opinion behind the disrespect (especially if you are part of the rejected group), but the behavior should be expected.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15930.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"7cx30d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: \"Liberal\" being used as an insult or a label is immensely toxic. Its a problem. Howdy, I have been fascinated by and really digging into U.S national politics since 2012. Though this is such a short time, its is an opinion I have grown a little passionate about over the past couple years. Recently Its been very difficult to not be thorny about this when people close to me reference \"liberals\" while talking about national politics in broad strokes. Reasoning: \"Liberal\" being used as a pejorative and also a label really muddies the water and creates divisive undertones to an otherwise normal political discussion or commentary. Its an empty word for anyone to describe others too left of their political ideas. Its seeped into descriptions of universities, doctors, students, minorities, scientists, media, protesters. I want to emphasize the connection Democrat = Liberals is a connection also too easily made along with the previously mentioned. All of this combined just makes it too widely relate-able to people and too widely applicable to schools of thought. It erodes and has helped erode respect for very fundamental ideas and people, therefore, toxic. Or maybe i need to stop following so many political-right pundits... _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dpta5a8","c_root_id_B":"dpugzx9","created_at_utc_A":1510680239,"created_at_utc_B":1510726831,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What word would you prefer these pundits to use, and why would using any other word make a difference?","human_ref_B":"okay I came out of LA and Liberal was the assumed stance, so I've almost never heard that. I heard Conservative, trump supporter, alt-right and the like spewed constantly as insults. Occasionally now I'll hear Lib-tard. Where are you that you are only hearing \"Liberal\" as an insult, because reddit is extremely liberal and you're far more likely to see my previously mentioned insults. Moving forwards, using any political stance as an insult or grounds to discount someone's honest opinion\/belief is probably the single biggest issue with the USA today. Our country was founded on liberty, not factionalism and it was surely easier for the founding fathers to cooperate with recently won freedom and the threat of re-conquest ever-present (see war of 1812, the fear was very valid). They were able to forge a nation which has endured and thrived where virtually every single other government on the planet has seen at least 1 (or many) complete changes of government (Notable exception: UK, though its debatable). Today we find ourselves not on the brink of a civil war due to the issue of slavery and 'states rights' but due to our political beliefs. Where once you could sit down with a couple of acquaintances and discuss politics, now it is the highest taboo to discuss outside of your personal echo chamber and dissenting opinions are shouted down and cast out. Until ALL sides are welcome to sit down and discuss their views, the fracturing of america will continue. I fear that won't occur until too late and our enemies have broken down the gates. I beg everyone, do not unfriend, block, shout down or otherwise try to silence dissent, instead stop and listen to their ideas and prepare to present your own ideas along with arguments for your views. If they disagree, that's okay, if there is mutual respect, you'll have another chance when both of you are more prepared to discuss such issues.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":46592.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"7cx30d","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"CMV: \"Liberal\" being used as an insult or a label is immensely toxic. Its a problem. Howdy, I have been fascinated by and really digging into U.S national politics since 2012. Though this is such a short time, its is an opinion I have grown a little passionate about over the past couple years. Recently Its been very difficult to not be thorny about this when people close to me reference \"liberals\" while talking about national politics in broad strokes. Reasoning: \"Liberal\" being used as a pejorative and also a label really muddies the water and creates divisive undertones to an otherwise normal political discussion or commentary. Its an empty word for anyone to describe others too left of their political ideas. Its seeped into descriptions of universities, doctors, students, minorities, scientists, media, protesters. I want to emphasize the connection Democrat = Liberals is a connection also too easily made along with the previously mentioned. All of this combined just makes it too widely relate-able to people and too widely applicable to schools of thought. It erodes and has helped erode respect for very fundamental ideas and people, therefore, toxic. Or maybe i need to stop following so many political-right pundits... _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"dptcjdb","c_root_id_B":"dpugzx9","created_at_utc_A":1510682473,"created_at_utc_B":1510726831,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What if I believe liberal policies are harmful? Is it equally toxic to use Nazi as an insult? If you genuinely disagree with an ideology and believe it is harmful, it is perfectly normal behavior to speak of it with distain and disrespect. You may disagree with the opinion behind the disrespect (especially if you are part of the rejected group), but the behavior should be expected.","human_ref_B":"okay I came out of LA and Liberal was the assumed stance, so I've almost never heard that. I heard Conservative, trump supporter, alt-right and the like spewed constantly as insults. Occasionally now I'll hear Lib-tard. Where are you that you are only hearing \"Liberal\" as an insult, because reddit is extremely liberal and you're far more likely to see my previously mentioned insults. Moving forwards, using any political stance as an insult or grounds to discount someone's honest opinion\/belief is probably the single biggest issue with the USA today. Our country was founded on liberty, not factionalism and it was surely easier for the founding fathers to cooperate with recently won freedom and the threat of re-conquest ever-present (see war of 1812, the fear was very valid). They were able to forge a nation which has endured and thrived where virtually every single other government on the planet has seen at least 1 (or many) complete changes of government (Notable exception: UK, though its debatable). Today we find ourselves not on the brink of a civil war due to the issue of slavery and 'states rights' but due to our political beliefs. Where once you could sit down with a couple of acquaintances and discuss politics, now it is the highest taboo to discuss outside of your personal echo chamber and dissenting opinions are shouted down and cast out. Until ALL sides are welcome to sit down and discuss their views, the fracturing of america will continue. I fear that won't occur until too late and our enemies have broken down the gates. I beg everyone, do not unfriend, block, shout down or otherwise try to silence dissent, instead stop and listen to their ideas and prepare to present your own ideas along with arguments for your views. If they disagree, that's okay, if there is mutual respect, you'll have another chance when both of you are more prepared to discuss such issues.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":44358.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"2m88ju","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Change my view thatI believe that in the US, hardcore drug addicts (i.e. meth, heroin) should be forced into rehab and slowly reintegrated into society. I recognize that this goes against their right to freedom. However, I would argue that an addict is never really free as long as they are addicted to something as intense as meth or heroin. They are probably never going to take the steps to get themselves out of it, and if they do, they may never be able to isolate themselves from the shitty environment that caused them to start using in the first place. I recognize that in some cases it's possible to do drugs recreationally and safely, but an addict is an addict. If the primary reason we don't interfere is a violation of human rights, I feel that saving people from themselves is more important than their rights in that instance. Tell me why I'm wrong, Reddit! > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cm1toq3","c_root_id_B":"cm1xyu8","created_at_utc_A":1415920631,"created_at_utc_B":1415929706,"score_A":6,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"How do you determine if someone is an addict rather than a user? There's also plenty of people that do quit without being forced into rehab.","human_ref_B":"I think you're under a few misconceptions about drug addicts. The first being that merely going through withdrawals is enough for an addict to quite acting out in their addiction. Physical addiction is a component but it doesn't address the underlying issues for the addict. This could be a variety of things - depression, past abuse, chemical imbalances, etc. You can force an addict through withdrawals (which, in the case of opioids, can be deadly - though I assume you would want the addict to be given proper medical care during this time) but you cannot change their mental state. After they're \"clean\" and out of rehab they'll just go back to acting out in their addiction. The second notion is that withdrawal is the end of the journey. It's not. It's the start. After you force an addict to withdraw they have to start facing the root cause that drove them to abusing drugs in the first place. And in some cases there are side effects of the drug can be long lasting (years) or permanent. As an example opioid drugs permanently alter brain structure and chemistry meaning that an opiate addict who successfully quits opiates and gets past the acute withdrawal (and potentially the post-acute withdrawal symptoms which can last weeks to months) still have to contend with their altered brain physiology. Addiction isn't just something you can \"fix\" by removing the drug from the addict. Addiction is less about the drug and much more about *why* the person is using it. Even if you successfully manage to detox addicts and \"reintegrate them into society\" unless the underlying causes of the addiction are discovered and addressed then the addict will simply return to addictive behaviors. The cycle continues until an addict hits \"rock bottom\" and decides to change. And not every addict hits rock bottom - and not every addict who hits rock bottom and decides to change is successful. While your goal is noble you ultimately can't save those who don't want to be saved. Source: my spouse is an opiate addict currently on methadone maintenance therapy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9075.0,"score_ratio":3.1666666667} {"post_id":"2m88ju","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Change my view thatI believe that in the US, hardcore drug addicts (i.e. meth, heroin) should be forced into rehab and slowly reintegrated into society. I recognize that this goes against their right to freedom. However, I would argue that an addict is never really free as long as they are addicted to something as intense as meth or heroin. They are probably never going to take the steps to get themselves out of it, and if they do, they may never be able to isolate themselves from the shitty environment that caused them to start using in the first place. I recognize that in some cases it's possible to do drugs recreationally and safely, but an addict is an addict. If the primary reason we don't interfere is a violation of human rights, I feel that saving people from themselves is more important than their rights in that instance. Tell me why I'm wrong, Reddit! > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cm1xoef","c_root_id_B":"cm1xyu8","created_at_utc_A":1415929101,"created_at_utc_B":1415929706,"score_A":2,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Should we do the same for fat people addicted to food? What about people addicted to caffeine? Sky divers addicted to adrenaline? Where would you draw the line? Is it any behaviour that you deem as not living an optimal lifestyle that can get someone put in what is essentially prison that rehabs?","human_ref_B":"I think you're under a few misconceptions about drug addicts. The first being that merely going through withdrawals is enough for an addict to quite acting out in their addiction. Physical addiction is a component but it doesn't address the underlying issues for the addict. This could be a variety of things - depression, past abuse, chemical imbalances, etc. You can force an addict through withdrawals (which, in the case of opioids, can be deadly - though I assume you would want the addict to be given proper medical care during this time) but you cannot change their mental state. After they're \"clean\" and out of rehab they'll just go back to acting out in their addiction. The second notion is that withdrawal is the end of the journey. It's not. It's the start. After you force an addict to withdraw they have to start facing the root cause that drove them to abusing drugs in the first place. And in some cases there are side effects of the drug can be long lasting (years) or permanent. As an example opioid drugs permanently alter brain structure and chemistry meaning that an opiate addict who successfully quits opiates and gets past the acute withdrawal (and potentially the post-acute withdrawal symptoms which can last weeks to months) still have to contend with their altered brain physiology. Addiction isn't just something you can \"fix\" by removing the drug from the addict. Addiction is less about the drug and much more about *why* the person is using it. Even if you successfully manage to detox addicts and \"reintegrate them into society\" unless the underlying causes of the addiction are discovered and addressed then the addict will simply return to addictive behaviors. The cycle continues until an addict hits \"rock bottom\" and decides to change. And not every addict hits rock bottom - and not every addict who hits rock bottom and decides to change is successful. While your goal is noble you ultimately can't save those who don't want to be saved. Source: my spouse is an opiate addict currently on methadone maintenance therapy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":605.0,"score_ratio":9.5} {"post_id":"2m88ju","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Change my view thatI believe that in the US, hardcore drug addicts (i.e. meth, heroin) should be forced into rehab and slowly reintegrated into society. I recognize that this goes against their right to freedom. However, I would argue that an addict is never really free as long as they are addicted to something as intense as meth or heroin. They are probably never going to take the steps to get themselves out of it, and if they do, they may never be able to isolate themselves from the shitty environment that caused them to start using in the first place. I recognize that in some cases it's possible to do drugs recreationally and safely, but an addict is an addict. If the primary reason we don't interfere is a violation of human rights, I feel that saving people from themselves is more important than their rights in that instance. Tell me why I'm wrong, Reddit! > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cm27bim","c_root_id_B":"cm1xoef","created_at_utc_A":1415955377,"created_at_utc_B":1415929101,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm a mental health counselor who worked at a dual diagnosis MICD (Mental Illness\/Chemical Dependency) program. I provided therapy to clients going through a 4-6 week intensive in-patient drug treatment program. 30-50% of our clients were mandated through drug court, meaning they were in treatment instead of going to prison for drug-related offenses (sale, DUI, domestic violence, etc.) I believe that sending people to treatment is far better than sending them to prison, but it is by no means a panacea for addiction. What you are describing is essentially mandated treatment for those we designate as addicts, which is already common practice. The first issue with your position is the premise that there is an arbitrary line between who is an addict and who is not. The diagnosis of substance related disorders is highly subjective and based on the individual's level of functioning. There is a large grey area of substance use which may subjectively be considered as addiction or not. I won't go into a ton of detail, but depending on the assessment, criteria, and information available, the answer to the question \"are they an addict? \" can vary greatly from one professional to another. The client's self report is biased and often fraught with denial, especially in mandated clients. Collateral sources can be useful, but still biased or unreliable. Courts, significant others, and family members can give insight into a client, but they all have their own agendas and biases. An addict is not just an addict, they are a complicated human being who likely doesn't fit neatly into a box. Your post references meth and heroin, but the majority of clients in treatment are there because of alcohol, which is completely legal. I had a number of clients who were very high functioning (lawyers, financiers, small business owners) heroin users on the weekends. By what vague criteria do you propose we diagnose addiction, and why are those criteria better than those developed through years of professional research? The second point I'd like to address is the importance of client \"buy in\" and its effect on relapse likelihood. For a client to address their addiction, they must first admit they have a problem. You can't just force someone to recover from drug addiction by power of will or removal of privileges. The client to put in constant effort for recovery and their therapist or drug counselor simply can't do it for them. You can put them through detox to get them safely past their withdrawals, but that doesn't cure their craving or addiction behavior. You can lock them up for a month or two in treatment, tell them drugs are bad, talk about better strategies, get them a job, temporary housing, give them medicine and therapy, and send them on their way, but in they end they have to be the one to stay sober. There's no point to rehabilitation if you can't eventually trust them to make their own decisions. That said, the lifetime prevalency for relapse after treatment is as high as 90%, depending on a number of factors. As you mention, getting someone into a new environment is critically important to recovery, but it's not always enough. Permanently cutting ties with your family and friends, being unemployed and impoverished, and struggling with mental illness all increase likelihood of relapse and are not easily overcome. Even for someone who is well adjusted and healthy, that sort of isolation is torturous. The more intrinsic motivation a client has to recover (self admitted instead of forced) the greater their likelihood of success. Similarly, having a strong support network like sober family, friends, or NA\/AA is strongly predictive of more successful sobriety. It's not rocket science. Are you more likely to do something because it's really important to you, or because it's a choice between doing it and jail? You seem to know that taking people's freedom is inherently wrong, but are able to dismiss it with the justification that addicts don't have freedom to begin with. I find this position a bit offensive, as it is reductionist and invalidating of the struggles of real people. You're right that addicts become slaves to their substances, but that isn't the same as forfeiting their rights. When you hear the stories of addicts face to face, you realize that they are usually victims of trauma and other circumstances outside their control. They use drugs or alcohol to try to regain some control over their lives, and they themselves are often the greatest victims of their actions. They destroy their relationships, their reputations, their careers, and have their freedom taken away when they hurt others. The solution to this problem is not to take from them further, but to give them a standard to live up to. If you treat addicts as second class citizens, they act like second class citizens. If you treat them with respect and compassion, and allow them to earn back the trust of their community, you give them one or two more reasons to change. Most of my mandated clients had no interest in changing. They either tried their best to put on a good face until they \"did their time\" and then went back to the same lifestyle, or sabotaged themselves and we kicked them back to their parole officers and courts. Some were really interested in getting their lives back together, and the threat of jail time was a big enough stick to get them headed in the right direction. Either way, we gave them all a fair chance and helped set them up as best we could for going back into \"the real world.\" It's late, so I'm sorry if I got a bit jumbled and soapboxy at the end. I've gotten to know a lot of very flawed but inherently good people in my time, and I care a great deal about treating them with respect. Most of the people I worked with will not remain sober the rest of their lives, but a few will, and a few more will be better set to try again when they're ready. Let me know if you have any questions or responses. I prefer dialogue to monologue.","human_ref_B":"Should we do the same for fat people addicted to food? What about people addicted to caffeine? Sky divers addicted to adrenaline? Where would you draw the line? Is it any behaviour that you deem as not living an optimal lifestyle that can get someone put in what is essentially prison that rehabs?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26276.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1v4l89","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"I believe people should be required to have licenses to possess pets like dogs and cats. CMV Attacks and abuse happen. Recently, a friend witnessed an off-leash Rottweiler snatch-up a chihuahua, kill it, and walk back to its (bewildered) owner with a bloody mouth and a wagging tail--ignorant that it had done anything wrong. Now there is a dead pet and a likely-soon-to-be-euthanized 'aggressive' dog simply because its owner was clueless with their animal. Higher-mammals have been kept as pets for centuries, and are often praised for their intelligence. It is precisely this level of intelligence that drives my belief that compulsory licensing is necessary. In light of what science has informed us about higher-mammal intellect and the emotional capacity that comes with it, if we wish to consider ourselves a moral society (which i think we hardly are but could certainly strive for) then it would seem to follow that licensing and requirements for that license (classes and such) could put us on a path that decreases animal abuse, property damage, and the other issues contained in the custodianship of certain pets. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ceooh1r","c_root_id_B":"ceonxq8","created_at_utc_A":1389644414,"created_at_utc_B":1389643234,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The cost of such a program would probably be that many people would have to delay adoption of an animal, and perhaps be prevented entirely from having an animal. If you make it harder to adopt a pet, less pets will be adopted. I don't think that's worth it when the majority of people are good pet owners.","human_ref_B":"I guess my biggest argument against this is that it would probably be for the most part inefficient. I think the majority of the population are decent pet owners. I may live in an area\/ country where animal abuse it not that common, but it seems like a bit of a waste to make everyone take a test for a licence when the majority do not need it. As for the awful minority, if animal abuse is seen and proven, most countries have laws against it and their animals can be taken away and they can be forbidden form having them in certain situations. In that sense, we do aim to be a moral society concerning how we treat animals. Perhaps some of the laws and punishments need to be stricter, but that's another matter. I also am not sure how well you can design a test for such a licence that would be sufficiently efficient at deterring possibly abusive owners from getting a pet. How do you test if a person will encourage\/ not discourage aggressive behaviour in a dog? Also, I do not think most people are unaware of how to correctly care for an animal, they just don't care. They may well be able to check \"yes, I know I should feed and medicate my pets as necessary\" and then not do it anyway. Your stance seems to be that we need to have more preventative measures against animal abuse (which is not bad in itself), however, I think given the relative rarity of abuse versus fine pet owners (unfortunately I have no statistics to back this up), combined with a lack of a sufficient test for a licence (that I can think of), it is a more efficient system to punish those that break animal abuse laws and let the majority be.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1180.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"1v4l89","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"I believe people should be required to have licenses to possess pets like dogs and cats. CMV Attacks and abuse happen. Recently, a friend witnessed an off-leash Rottweiler snatch-up a chihuahua, kill it, and walk back to its (bewildered) owner with a bloody mouth and a wagging tail--ignorant that it had done anything wrong. Now there is a dead pet and a likely-soon-to-be-euthanized 'aggressive' dog simply because its owner was clueless with their animal. Higher-mammals have been kept as pets for centuries, and are often praised for their intelligence. It is precisely this level of intelligence that drives my belief that compulsory licensing is necessary. In light of what science has informed us about higher-mammal intellect and the emotional capacity that comes with it, if we wish to consider ourselves a moral society (which i think we hardly are but could certainly strive for) then it would seem to follow that licensing and requirements for that license (classes and such) could put us on a path that decreases animal abuse, property damage, and the other issues contained in the custodianship of certain pets. Change my view.","c_root_id_A":"ceonxq8","c_root_id_B":"ceoormq","created_at_utc_A":1389643234,"created_at_utc_B":1389645079,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I guess my biggest argument against this is that it would probably be for the most part inefficient. I think the majority of the population are decent pet owners. I may live in an area\/ country where animal abuse it not that common, but it seems like a bit of a waste to make everyone take a test for a licence when the majority do not need it. As for the awful minority, if animal abuse is seen and proven, most countries have laws against it and their animals can be taken away and they can be forbidden form having them in certain situations. In that sense, we do aim to be a moral society concerning how we treat animals. Perhaps some of the laws and punishments need to be stricter, but that's another matter. I also am not sure how well you can design a test for such a licence that would be sufficiently efficient at deterring possibly abusive owners from getting a pet. How do you test if a person will encourage\/ not discourage aggressive behaviour in a dog? Also, I do not think most people are unaware of how to correctly care for an animal, they just don't care. They may well be able to check \"yes, I know I should feed and medicate my pets as necessary\" and then not do it anyway. Your stance seems to be that we need to have more preventative measures against animal abuse (which is not bad in itself), however, I think given the relative rarity of abuse versus fine pet owners (unfortunately I have no statistics to back this up), combined with a lack of a sufficient test for a licence (that I can think of), it is a more efficient system to punish those that break animal abuse laws and let the majority be.","human_ref_B":"If a license was required, I'd imagine there would be a lot more animals in shelters and a lot fewer people able to adopt them. You'd probably have a higher ratio of \"smart\" pet owners, but the numbers of \"smart\" pet owners would probably shrink overall. This would also create a number of technical issues and annoyances, such as finding a licensed friend to look after a pet while you're away.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1845.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"fbilp1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: In places that the death penalty is legal, a lottery should be instituted wherein a citizen is selected to 'push the button' Firstly, I will be open with the fact that I do not agree with the death penalty. Killing people to illustrate that murder is wrong is hypocritical and unproductive. That being said, I acknowledge that many people don't feel that way. My argument is being framed from the perspective that even IF murder is justifiable in some situations, it is important that individuals really reflect deeply on the implications, lest we trivialize a ritual that should be saved for the worst of times. My proposition is this: If people feel strongly enough to embrace the notion of systematic murder, then those people should be willing to pull the trigger. Whenever an inmate is sentenced to death by a jury, that jury should automatically enter a lottery wherein 1 of the 12 will be chosen to pull the trigger. If that person abstains, then the prisoner would receive a stay of execution and his sentence would be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole. If a judge hands down the death penalty, then the duties of executioner would be deferred to a lottery of people of voting age residing within the state or region that the sentencing takes place. Again, 12 people would be selected. In this instance, the people selected will have the right to abstain. If more than half of the chosen 12 abstain, the prisoners sentence is again commuted to life. If the chosen citizen agrees to be the executioner, but is unable to perform their duty after accepting the responsibility, then again the prisoners sentence will be commuted to life without parole. IF the chosen executioner fulfills their duty, they will be protected by the law from any criminal or civil prosecution as a result of participating. Ideally this would do two things: 1) It would require people to more seriously consider the implications of justified murder. Seeking the death of the Bad Guy as a means of pursuing justice is depicted throughout our society, be it through movies, video games, or mainstream media. We see the repercussions of this in young soldiers that go off to war. All too many veterans come home with PTSD because, while they were willing to do anything it took to protect the ideals of the free world, they did not fully understand the grim reality and permanence of taking a human life. 2) It would provide a more accurate gauge as to how many people in that region truly believe that the death penalty is the right thing to do. If you can't stomach being the one to end a criminals life, that's a plain indication that we as a culture are not looking at this issue through an objective lens. As nerdy as it sounds, I feel compelled to quote the Great Gandalf: 'Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.' Change my (and Gandalf's) view.","c_root_id_A":"fj4ivg2","c_root_id_B":"fj4hpre","created_at_utc_A":1583009296,"created_at_utc_B":1583008531,"score_A":12,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Do you also believe that if I eat chicken I should kill or be able to kill atleast 1 chicken? And gut it and do all of that? Or if I believe that abortions are someone\u2019s right up to 25 weeks, I should witness one at 25 weeks? Or have one or operate with one? The thing is you are hoping an emotional moment might change someone\u2019s mind so the above instances aren\u2019t much different.","human_ref_B":"I can vote against the death penalty all I want, if the majority of my district, city, or state disagree with me it won't matter. Plus this would just result in someone's fate being up to the luck of the draw. Deciding whether people live or die based off of random chance is awful. It also wouldn't surprise me if the 'random' process could be abused in some way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":765.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"fbilp1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: In places that the death penalty is legal, a lottery should be instituted wherein a citizen is selected to 'push the button' Firstly, I will be open with the fact that I do not agree with the death penalty. Killing people to illustrate that murder is wrong is hypocritical and unproductive. That being said, I acknowledge that many people don't feel that way. My argument is being framed from the perspective that even IF murder is justifiable in some situations, it is important that individuals really reflect deeply on the implications, lest we trivialize a ritual that should be saved for the worst of times. My proposition is this: If people feel strongly enough to embrace the notion of systematic murder, then those people should be willing to pull the trigger. Whenever an inmate is sentenced to death by a jury, that jury should automatically enter a lottery wherein 1 of the 12 will be chosen to pull the trigger. If that person abstains, then the prisoner would receive a stay of execution and his sentence would be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole. If a judge hands down the death penalty, then the duties of executioner would be deferred to a lottery of people of voting age residing within the state or region that the sentencing takes place. Again, 12 people would be selected. In this instance, the people selected will have the right to abstain. If more than half of the chosen 12 abstain, the prisoners sentence is again commuted to life. If the chosen citizen agrees to be the executioner, but is unable to perform their duty after accepting the responsibility, then again the prisoners sentence will be commuted to life without parole. IF the chosen executioner fulfills their duty, they will be protected by the law from any criminal or civil prosecution as a result of participating. Ideally this would do two things: 1) It would require people to more seriously consider the implications of justified murder. Seeking the death of the Bad Guy as a means of pursuing justice is depicted throughout our society, be it through movies, video games, or mainstream media. We see the repercussions of this in young soldiers that go off to war. All too many veterans come home with PTSD because, while they were willing to do anything it took to protect the ideals of the free world, they did not fully understand the grim reality and permanence of taking a human life. 2) It would provide a more accurate gauge as to how many people in that region truly believe that the death penalty is the right thing to do. If you can't stomach being the one to end a criminals life, that's a plain indication that we as a culture are not looking at this issue through an objective lens. As nerdy as it sounds, I feel compelled to quote the Great Gandalf: 'Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.' Change my (and Gandalf's) view.","c_root_id_A":"fj657j4","c_root_id_B":"fj4ti7s","created_at_utc_A":1583057297,"created_at_utc_B":1583016522,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"One thing I'm not seeing a lot of people looking at here is what kind of impact this might have on the unlucky 12 who have to make that decision. Like, let's say that you're a theoretical person who is a proponent of the death penalty, or at least who has been convinced that this person deserves to die. You're selected to *push the button*, and push it you, reluctantly, do. It's hard to imagine this *not* being a traumatising process. Now, you could be arguing that this traumatisation to the executioner is on purpose - that it shows that we shouldn't be taking people's lives if we're not confident to do it ourselves. That's a lovely sentiment in thought-experiment-land, but if you somehow end up actually instituting this plan you've just created an exceptionally inefficient and inhumane way of changing people's opinions. Uh, bad example here: self-driving car designers aren't made to get in their new car and watch as it mows down a specific set of people based on an ethical decision they just programmed into it to make them *consider their decisions*. Oh, and imagine this other scenario: one of the 12 believes that this person is a terrible, terrible person who must be killed to prevent all odds of them walking the earth again. But there's a bit of a cognitive dissonance here, as they don't want to watch somebody die. So, they don't abstain in the hope that they won't be picked to do the killing. They are. The day of the execution comes. But unlike our person from earlier, this one just can't bring themselves to *push the button*. They leave the execution centre that day, feeling probably a little traumatised, idk. They eventually come to forget this incident. However, many years later, they see a news story about how that same criminal just escaped prison and killed five people. Congratulations, you've just forced an innocent civilian to do the trolley problem with real human lives! Seeing as the Vsauce series with a *simulated* trolley problem had to specifically select people who weren't vulnerable, then tell them it was fake *immediately* after they made their choice, and then have psychologists (IIRC, may have been similar profession) on hand to make sure they weren't gonna get PTSD or something, your plan surely^^^\/s can't lead to any horrible negative side effects!","human_ref_B":"A few problems that I see: 1. If you're against violence on the grounds of religion it seems like you should be able to be a conscientious objector. So not everyone should be in the lottery. 2. Are you choosing people within the district the execution is taking place? If so that seems unfair since come districts in a state would have executions but not all. If it's statewide, am I just supposed to commute to where the execution is taking place? If so does the state pay me? 3. Why does this only apply to executions? For places where it's acceptable to kill dogs (or animals in general, people usually just care more about dogs), should random people have to do the killing even if they're against it? The argument gets more ridiculous when we look at laws like sodomy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":40775.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"fbilp1","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.6,"history":"CMV: In places that the death penalty is legal, a lottery should be instituted wherein a citizen is selected to 'push the button' Firstly, I will be open with the fact that I do not agree with the death penalty. Killing people to illustrate that murder is wrong is hypocritical and unproductive. That being said, I acknowledge that many people don't feel that way. My argument is being framed from the perspective that even IF murder is justifiable in some situations, it is important that individuals really reflect deeply on the implications, lest we trivialize a ritual that should be saved for the worst of times. My proposition is this: If people feel strongly enough to embrace the notion of systematic murder, then those people should be willing to pull the trigger. Whenever an inmate is sentenced to death by a jury, that jury should automatically enter a lottery wherein 1 of the 12 will be chosen to pull the trigger. If that person abstains, then the prisoner would receive a stay of execution and his sentence would be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole. If a judge hands down the death penalty, then the duties of executioner would be deferred to a lottery of people of voting age residing within the state or region that the sentencing takes place. Again, 12 people would be selected. In this instance, the people selected will have the right to abstain. If more than half of the chosen 12 abstain, the prisoners sentence is again commuted to life. If the chosen citizen agrees to be the executioner, but is unable to perform their duty after accepting the responsibility, then again the prisoners sentence will be commuted to life without parole. IF the chosen executioner fulfills their duty, they will be protected by the law from any criminal or civil prosecution as a result of participating. Ideally this would do two things: 1) It would require people to more seriously consider the implications of justified murder. Seeking the death of the Bad Guy as a means of pursuing justice is depicted throughout our society, be it through movies, video games, or mainstream media. We see the repercussions of this in young soldiers that go off to war. All too many veterans come home with PTSD because, while they were willing to do anything it took to protect the ideals of the free world, they did not fully understand the grim reality and permanence of taking a human life. 2) It would provide a more accurate gauge as to how many people in that region truly believe that the death penalty is the right thing to do. If you can't stomach being the one to end a criminals life, that's a plain indication that we as a culture are not looking at this issue through an objective lens. As nerdy as it sounds, I feel compelled to quote the Great Gandalf: 'Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.' Change my (and Gandalf's) view.","c_root_id_A":"fj5q395","c_root_id_B":"fj657j4","created_at_utc_A":1583039434,"created_at_utc_B":1583057297,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Wouldn\u2019t a better solution be to just get rid of capital punishment everywhere? I don\u2019t anticipate even the most cruel of republicans wanting to do this.","human_ref_B":"One thing I'm not seeing a lot of people looking at here is what kind of impact this might have on the unlucky 12 who have to make that decision. Like, let's say that you're a theoretical person who is a proponent of the death penalty, or at least who has been convinced that this person deserves to die. You're selected to *push the button*, and push it you, reluctantly, do. It's hard to imagine this *not* being a traumatising process. Now, you could be arguing that this traumatisation to the executioner is on purpose - that it shows that we shouldn't be taking people's lives if we're not confident to do it ourselves. That's a lovely sentiment in thought-experiment-land, but if you somehow end up actually instituting this plan you've just created an exceptionally inefficient and inhumane way of changing people's opinions. Uh, bad example here: self-driving car designers aren't made to get in their new car and watch as it mows down a specific set of people based on an ethical decision they just programmed into it to make them *consider their decisions*. Oh, and imagine this other scenario: one of the 12 believes that this person is a terrible, terrible person who must be killed to prevent all odds of them walking the earth again. But there's a bit of a cognitive dissonance here, as they don't want to watch somebody die. So, they don't abstain in the hope that they won't be picked to do the killing. They are. The day of the execution comes. But unlike our person from earlier, this one just can't bring themselves to *push the button*. They leave the execution centre that day, feeling probably a little traumatised, idk. They eventually come to forget this incident. However, many years later, they see a news story about how that same criminal just escaped prison and killed five people. Congratulations, you've just forced an innocent civilian to do the trolley problem with real human lives! Seeing as the Vsauce series with a *simulated* trolley problem had to specifically select people who weren't vulnerable, then tell them it was fake *immediately* after they made their choice, and then have psychologists (IIRC, may have been similar profession) on hand to make sure they weren't gonna get PTSD or something, your plan surely^^^\/s can't lead to any horrible negative side effects!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17863.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"gz47in","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The rhetoric of the BLM movement on social media is coming on too strong. I want to start by saying I am supportive of the recent BLM protests - I think recent events have really opened people's eyes to systemic racism across the nation and the more we talk about it, the more likely something will be done about it. However, I've been seeing various hashtags surrounding the BLM movement that I feel won't necessarily help the situation, such as #DefundThePolice and just yesterday I became aware of #ShutDownSTEM and #ShutDownAcademia. My initial reaction to these hashtags was that of surprise. If we defund the police, who will enforce the laws of our communities? If we shut down STEM research, how will we push scientific and technological frontiers? Just because law enforcement and academic research contain instances of systemic racism, doesn't mean they should both be demolished. After digging further, these hashtags are just titles for reform or action that I think are fairly reasonable. At least my understanding is that defunding the police is a movement to reallocate the excessive and unnecessary funds that are going to the police to other areas of government. Shutting down STEM is about a one day strike so researchers can learn more about how systemic racism permeates their respective fields, not shutting down the entire practice of research. But regardless, on the surface, these hashtags may be misconstrued as pushing for something extremely radical (especially if people don't put in the time to investigate what these movements are actually calling for), and could drive further division and anger in people who see these posts on social media. Or at the very least make people scoff at and dismiss the overall BLM movement. All of which, to me, are counterproductive to the change many want to see in society. Happy to hear what other people think about this.","c_root_id_A":"fte4in0","c_root_id_B":"fte448j","created_at_utc_A":1591639657,"created_at_utc_B":1591639461,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The problem is, when a viewpoint is necessarily challenging (like anything involving \"hey folks, you might be complicit in a racist system!\") then pretty much anything you say will be \"coming on too strong.\" We specifically came up with the idea of \"privilege\" because it sidesteps blame and isn't threatening, and it took about five seconds for people to be like \"Ack, you said 'privilege!' That means you blame me and think I'm bad!\" People are gonna get uncomfortable. Trying to come up with the perfect words to avoid that is a fool's errand. So, lots of times people will err on the side of being confrontational, because if you can't avoid scaring anyone, you might as well try to get attention. There is definitely merit to this. I think the examples you list are not deliberately confrontational. It is a leap to see #shutdownstem and think it means shut down stem FOREVER. #defundpolice is in fact deliberately LESS confrontational than #abolishpolice. But yeah, sometimes people are strategically in-your-face (like with #abolishpolice) because damn, if people are gonna react the same to defund as they do to abolish, might as well try to get eyeballs on you.","human_ref_B":"BLM isn't exactly active in political policy, their more of a social media movement. I'm sure the NACP is like... how can we seem more reasonable, let's look to twitter... thanks for moving the goal post to our advantage BLM.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":196.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"gz47in","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The rhetoric of the BLM movement on social media is coming on too strong. I want to start by saying I am supportive of the recent BLM protests - I think recent events have really opened people's eyes to systemic racism across the nation and the more we talk about it, the more likely something will be done about it. However, I've been seeing various hashtags surrounding the BLM movement that I feel won't necessarily help the situation, such as #DefundThePolice and just yesterday I became aware of #ShutDownSTEM and #ShutDownAcademia. My initial reaction to these hashtags was that of surprise. If we defund the police, who will enforce the laws of our communities? If we shut down STEM research, how will we push scientific and technological frontiers? Just because law enforcement and academic research contain instances of systemic racism, doesn't mean they should both be demolished. After digging further, these hashtags are just titles for reform or action that I think are fairly reasonable. At least my understanding is that defunding the police is a movement to reallocate the excessive and unnecessary funds that are going to the police to other areas of government. Shutting down STEM is about a one day strike so researchers can learn more about how systemic racism permeates their respective fields, not shutting down the entire practice of research. But regardless, on the surface, these hashtags may be misconstrued as pushing for something extremely radical (especially if people don't put in the time to investigate what these movements are actually calling for), and could drive further division and anger in people who see these posts on social media. Or at the very least make people scoff at and dismiss the overall BLM movement. All of which, to me, are counterproductive to the change many want to see in society. Happy to hear what other people think about this.","c_root_id_A":"ftebpj9","c_root_id_B":"fte448j","created_at_utc_A":1591643205,"created_at_utc_B":1591639461,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Maybe more tangentially related, is the refusal to take back other catchy phrases. People countered \"Black Lives Matter\" with \"All Lives Matter\". This is a catchy, short, to the point hashtag that the right can use to counter legitimate protests. Why not take it back? It is true after all. All lives do matter. Spin it back to the current protest, add it to BLM signs, tag police brutality with it. Use their own hashtag to spread information that they are more likely to see. Pretty much anything the right comes up with as a viral slogan in response to a left wing protest can be taken back. Think about how mad they'll be when their \"concern\" over BLM vs ALM makes it look like they support the actual protest. And then you can spread the message to all the people looking up the ALM hashtag. Their eco-chamber is only seeing videos of the rioters being violent. Let them see what the police are doing to the peaceful protesters. You can even take MAGA. Make it ours, turn it into a slogan for actually making the country a better place instead of a dog whistle for making it the 1950's. The right, especially under Trump, likes short and viral points. Don't let them have them. Adopt them and change their meaning so it can't be used to campaign to bigots without coming across as pro-reform.","human_ref_B":"BLM isn't exactly active in political policy, their more of a social media movement. I'm sure the NACP is like... how can we seem more reasonable, let's look to twitter... thanks for moving the goal post to our advantage BLM.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3744.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"gz47in","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"CMV: The rhetoric of the BLM movement on social media is coming on too strong. I want to start by saying I am supportive of the recent BLM protests - I think recent events have really opened people's eyes to systemic racism across the nation and the more we talk about it, the more likely something will be done about it. However, I've been seeing various hashtags surrounding the BLM movement that I feel won't necessarily help the situation, such as #DefundThePolice and just yesterday I became aware of #ShutDownSTEM and #ShutDownAcademia. My initial reaction to these hashtags was that of surprise. If we defund the police, who will enforce the laws of our communities? If we shut down STEM research, how will we push scientific and technological frontiers? Just because law enforcement and academic research contain instances of systemic racism, doesn't mean they should both be demolished. After digging further, these hashtags are just titles for reform or action that I think are fairly reasonable. At least my understanding is that defunding the police is a movement to reallocate the excessive and unnecessary funds that are going to the police to other areas of government. Shutting down STEM is about a one day strike so researchers can learn more about how systemic racism permeates their respective fields, not shutting down the entire practice of research. But regardless, on the surface, these hashtags may be misconstrued as pushing for something extremely radical (especially if people don't put in the time to investigate what these movements are actually calling for), and could drive further division and anger in people who see these posts on social media. Or at the very least make people scoff at and dismiss the overall BLM movement. All of which, to me, are counterproductive to the change many want to see in society. Happy to hear what other people think about this.","c_root_id_A":"fte5b0o","c_root_id_B":"ftebpj9","created_at_utc_A":1591640047,"created_at_utc_B":1591643205,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's the most effective protest movement in like 50 years what are you comparing it too?","human_ref_B":"Maybe more tangentially related, is the refusal to take back other catchy phrases. People countered \"Black Lives Matter\" with \"All Lives Matter\". This is a catchy, short, to the point hashtag that the right can use to counter legitimate protests. Why not take it back? It is true after all. All lives do matter. Spin it back to the current protest, add it to BLM signs, tag police brutality with it. Use their own hashtag to spread information that they are more likely to see. Pretty much anything the right comes up with as a viral slogan in response to a left wing protest can be taken back. Think about how mad they'll be when their \"concern\" over BLM vs ALM makes it look like they support the actual protest. And then you can spread the message to all the people looking up the ALM hashtag. Their eco-chamber is only seeing videos of the rioters being violent. Let them see what the police are doing to the peaceful protesters. You can even take MAGA. Make it ours, turn it into a slogan for actually making the country a better place instead of a dog whistle for making it the 1950's. The right, especially under Trump, likes short and viral points. Don't let them have them. Adopt them and change their meaning so it can't be used to campaign to bigots without coming across as pro-reform.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3158.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"2njpov","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"Change my view thatI don't think it matters whether the Grand Jury thinks Darren Wilson is guilty, he should have been indicted anyway. In the case at hand, there is doubt about the guilt of Darren Wilson. I am not saying whether or not he did anything illegal because I do not know, but the job of the Grand Jury is also not to determine guilt, it is to determine whether the case deserves a trial. http:\/\/www.vox.com\/xpress\/2014\/11\/26\/7295595\/eyewitnesses-ferguson-grand-jury As per that article, it is unclear what happened. This is enough confusion to require a trial, and it doesn't matter from the perspective of the Grand Jury what the outcome would be, it should still be requiring a trial. To be clear, it is not a question of guilt that the Grand Jury should be answering, it is a questions of whether they are 100% sure that what has happened breached no laws. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"cmehcqi","c_root_id_B":"cmei97i","created_at_utc_A":1417100090,"created_at_utc_B":1417102624,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Eyewitness testimony is probably the most unreliable piece of information that can be presented as evidence in a courtroom. It's the leading cause of wrongful imprisonment and exoneration, especially in rape cases. Police tactics lead to misidentification of the perpatrator, and eyewitnesses have an incredibly fragile memory that can conform to the most convenient option. If a gun-man burst into a classroom and fled, you would get 30 very different descriptions of his appearance from the students. With that being said, what happened in Ferguson is great evidence of this. You have a handful of black people claiming they saw Brown with his hands up surrendering. You have another group of them saying he was running away with his back turned. When you look at these groups of people, they're all biased neighbors who are probably fed up with police and wished to make the Michael Brown shooting another case of police violence against unarmed black youth. When we look at the forensic evidence, none of their accounts are true. All of the bullets entered from the front. By recreating the crime scene with forensic science, it was obvious that Brown was the aggressor and that nothing the \"witnesses\" said was true. This controversy was fueled by the media and the racist undertones. It's not a matter of black and white, it's a matter of right and wrong. Michael Brown robbed a store, assaulted an innocent clerk, mouthed off to a police officer, attempted to grab a police officers gun, attacked a police officer, and charged a police officer despite MANY warnings to get down. I would hope that whether Michael Brown would have been shot by that officer whether he was black, white, asian, indian, samoan, mexican, etc. And I would hope that that officer would have been acquitted in the name of self defense. Officers risk their lives everyday to protect people. I know that many departments are corrupt, but when there is an intruder in your home, the police will come with guns drawn to take him out and save your life. Why prolong the riots with an expensive, long trial? It was obvious from forensic evidence (the most convincing and legitimate evidence) that Officer Wilson was acting in self defense. If there was a trial, there would be even more time for misinformed, biased media coverage and greater time for egos to boil and people to become angry. When the not guilty verdict finally came back, there would be an even bigger explosion than there is now!","human_ref_B":"A few words about trials. They suck. A few more words. To be the defendant in a criminal trial is a terrifying thing. There is always the off chance of a conviction no matter how confident you are about the case (you know the fun you get playing the 1 in a million lottery when you might win? imagine that reversed). It is very expensive paying criminal lawyers. It consumes your life. It takes up months or years with a cloud over your head to the rest of the world. And even if you have bail (which can be a financial hardship) you will have your activities limited by that bail so your liberty is infringed even if you are aquited. Because just the process is a punishment over hundreds of years laws have evolved to protect the defendant. Most fundamentally is that because the standard for a conviction is so high (any reasonable doubt should get you acquitted), if there is no reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction there should not even be a trial. If the prosecutor or grand jury looks at a case and says \"look no matter what happens at trial there is no way that this case could be made strong enough for a conviction with this evidence\" then there are no charges and no trial. This is a very low standard and easy to overcome and it speaks to just how strong Darren Wilson's case was that the grand jury didn't indite him. tl:dr; We shouldn't have trials for the sake of trials. Prosecutors need to use their heads and ask \"is there any way a trial could end in a conviction?\" and if the answer is no they have an ethical duty not to proceed with a trial - regardless of how pissed off the public is.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2534.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"8rn9fn","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"CMV: We should teach young people (high school, middle school) how to protect themselves alongside teaching consent, respect, etc. Right now there is a big push in society towards teaching consent, appropriate behavior (both verbal and physical) respect, etc. in schools, and I am 100% behind that. I think it's incredibly important and I think there are far too many people, of all ages, who do not understand the full scope of sexual assault and rape (i.e. grabbing a stranger's butt at a bar or using coercion to get your s\/o to have sex with you). I've also had far too many close female friends (and one friend's 12-year-old daughter) experience sexual assault and rape, both attempted and successful, so it is a hot-button issue for me and one I think is incredibly important. With that said, I think it's also important to teach people how to protect themselves and avoid bad situations. I think it's important to teach young women (and young men) about the dangers of being drunk around being you don't trust, not watching your drink, going home with a person you just met, online dating (and online safety in general, such as nudes), and other topics. To me, this is not victim blaming, this is being preventative. I've heard the argument that \"all women already know this stuff\" but the fact is there's a difference between knowing and caring, and I see a lot of \"can't\/won't happen to me\" attitude, especially in the 16-24 crowd. As a quick note to ensure clarification, I do NOT condone blaming someone for something that happens to them. Someone should be able to get blackout drunk at a party, or go to a new club alone, or spend time alone with a new boyfriend without having to fear sexual assault or rape...but that's not the world we live in. Everyone knows not to drink and drive, but we still teach students not to get in a car with a drunk driver, so how would this be different? _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e0sqtij","c_root_id_B":"e0svueh","created_at_utc_A":1529197239,"created_at_utc_B":1529203577,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I agree with you 100%, teaching people to protect themselves in potentially dangerous situations is perfectly reasonable and doesn't imply that the person defending themselves is somehow at fault. However... I disagree that this is the job of the public school system. It's up to parents how they want to educate their children when it comes to things like these. I know that I would be capable of handling these issues with the seriousness and care that they deserve with my (future) children one-on-one, but I would not trust a teacher to impart that same level of importance to a classroom full of teenagers. Sex Ed is already a bit of a shitshow, to the point where I plan to preempt the public school system's version of it when I have kids.","human_ref_B":"Have we not been teaching those things? When I was in school, pretty much all of the information I ever heard about sexual assault prevention was \"things women can do to avoid it\". And every college or university I've ever been to (as a student or an employee) holds \"women only self defense classes\" a few times a year. What's victim blaming is the belief that any of these things are anything close to adequate \"rape prevention\". That doesn't mean they're totally useless and will never help anyone, but the fact is that most rape victims know their assailant and may even have a close and trusting relationship with them. The only way to prevent those rapes is to never be alone with anyone. So sure, teach people (men and women) how to protect themselves from strangers in public places who might want to harm them or steal from them. But don't call it \"rape prevention\", because it's not.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6338.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64ggmx","c_root_id_B":"e64gfu1","created_at_utc_A":1537176192,"created_at_utc_B":1537176141,"score_A":23,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"The whole idea of \"professionalism\" itself is a social construct. I mean, what you are saying is that there is no natural property inherent to suits that are \"professional\" you are ignoring that professionalism itself is nothing that can be inherent to anything, as it is just as made up as suits.","human_ref_B":"I disagree that clothes are getting simpler or that the need to impress with clothing is decreasing. There doesn't seem to be any reason why that would be the case. As long as there are occasions of varying importance and formality I don't see suits going away.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":51.0,"score_ratio":1.6428571429} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64jgyi","c_root_id_B":"e64w826","created_at_utc_A":1537182572,"created_at_utc_B":1537197271,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I work in law firms and suits are work uniforms. (You have to pay for the uniform!) Humans really like uniforms, especially for other people who are serving them. Suits won\u2019t be going away real soon.","human_ref_B":"Guys want to look good. They feel better when they look good. They're more confident when they look good. Others perceive them as being more intelligent, trustworthy, etc... when they look good. And a nice looking, well tailored suit LOOKS GOOD! A nice polo and some jeans just don't do it to the level a suit can, especially for someone without a nice athletic physique. Also, it sounds like the majority of your argument is based on comfort. Well, in a few words, you're wrong. A well tailored suit is really no less comfortable than jeans and button down shirt, IMO. What about a suit isn't comfortable? Too tight around the neck? Get a bigger neck size ya dingus! Pants too tight? Alterations are cheap! I actually prefer dress slacks now because they're a bit cooler than jeans, or at least the ones I buy are. I'm super comfortable in a suit and would have no problem wearing one every day, in fact I often wear them to work just cause. I'm not gonna wear jeans when I'm meeting with a client that's spending thousands of dollars on my services. I care about them and I want to show them IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE that I care! Because there's 50 other people in town that they could have chosen, and might choose next time. I'm not giving them the slightest reason to take their business elsewhere. It really does make an impact, ESPECIALLY during the first impression. It kinda sucked when I made that switch to the tie life, but that's because I was wearing those cheap-ass $20 shirts from Kohl's that only come in S\/M\/L sizes. Nothing REALLY fit well, it just sorta covered my body. Getting properly fitted shirts\/pants\/jackets made all the difference. I wear a tie every work day now, even days when most others are going casual. Sounds like you may need to spend a few more bucks(or just shop around a bit more) and get some nicer fitting dress clothes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14699.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64vza6","c_root_id_B":"e64w826","created_at_utc_A":1537197056,"created_at_utc_B":1537197271,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"oz0n >CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. Humanity, unfortunately, has a penchant for imagery. We've had clothes ever since we *could* have clothes. Status is ***always*** correlated with clothes, as titles are easy to forget, names and faces are difficult (apparently). As for going away in a few decades, here are a few counterarguments: 1) Suits can be made out of many, many, many, many materials. Honestly surprised I haven't seen a carbon fiber suit yet. 2) Materials = status, especially in nonwestern cultures. It might not be a suit, but it'd function equivalently as a suit. 3) Images are a hell of a lot easier to understand than text. No translation necessary. Advised, maybe, but not necessary. 4) Sex sells, and from the way I've seen some women shop around for men, once you get to a certain age, you'd rather see dudes in suits than half naked. Dudes in suits = money, status, ability for someone to take care of how they look. 5) Because of #4, dudes will wear suits - it's the business equivalent of a swimsuit competition for 20\/30 somethings for men. Men are either trying to sleep with women or court them for longer term relationships, and suits do the job quite nicely. 6) Let's say that men, overnight, decide, collectively, that suits are equivalent to t-shirts. Impossible, yes, but hear me out. Now let's assume that women remain the same as now. *Men will still wear suits for them.* >For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. What? Togas were one piece and required a pin. Sure leggings and a North Face jacket have become the college uniform for American girls, but those garments are complex to make, and during the summer, outfits usually get more complex, not simpler. Jeans took off because of a couple things: 1) Cotton gin ***massively*** increased cotton production. Jeans were already being made, so they just made more. Around the time the cotton gin hit (edit: *on a massive scale*) (~~1880s\/1890s~~ *1840s\/1850s*), international trade was opening up. By 1940, with reliable steam\/coal transportation, along with the New Deal and World War 1, international trade had ***skyrocketed***. Jeans were in the clothing vocabulary, but barely - they were a functional garment. 2) Jeans didn't take off until the 1960s - white people in America were still wearing khakis and normal pants, and Levi's took advantage of the cheap ass manufacturing available internationally. All of a sudden, jeans went from $70 a pair to $30 a pair. 3) Finally, have you seen jeans for women these days? \"Distressed jeans\" was a look that was quite popular 2-3 years ago (not so much now). American Apparel literally paid people to take belt sanders to perfectly good jeans to rough them up. That's not simple. >Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. Quick list of accessories popular with American white people: 1) Necklaces 2) Watches 3) Pendants 4) Keychains\/car keys 5) Phone cases 6) Rings 7) Bracelets 8) Chokers 9) Hats 10) Scarves 11) Sunhats 12) Sunglasses 13) Handbags I think that's probably $50+ billion dollars of industries right there?","human_ref_B":"Guys want to look good. They feel better when they look good. They're more confident when they look good. Others perceive them as being more intelligent, trustworthy, etc... when they look good. And a nice looking, well tailored suit LOOKS GOOD! A nice polo and some jeans just don't do it to the level a suit can, especially for someone without a nice athletic physique. Also, it sounds like the majority of your argument is based on comfort. Well, in a few words, you're wrong. A well tailored suit is really no less comfortable than jeans and button down shirt, IMO. What about a suit isn't comfortable? Too tight around the neck? Get a bigger neck size ya dingus! Pants too tight? Alterations are cheap! I actually prefer dress slacks now because they're a bit cooler than jeans, or at least the ones I buy are. I'm super comfortable in a suit and would have no problem wearing one every day, in fact I often wear them to work just cause. I'm not gonna wear jeans when I'm meeting with a client that's spending thousands of dollars on my services. I care about them and I want to show them IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE that I care! Because there's 50 other people in town that they could have chosen, and might choose next time. I'm not giving them the slightest reason to take their business elsewhere. It really does make an impact, ESPECIALLY during the first impression. It kinda sucked when I made that switch to the tie life, but that's because I was wearing those cheap-ass $20 shirts from Kohl's that only come in S\/M\/L sizes. Nothing REALLY fit well, it just sorta covered my body. Getting properly fitted shirts\/pants\/jackets made all the difference. I wear a tie every work day now, even days when most others are going casual. Sounds like you may need to spend a few more bucks(or just shop around a bit more) and get some nicer fitting dress clothes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":215.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64jf37","c_root_id_B":"e64w826","created_at_utc_A":1537182479,"created_at_utc_B":1537197271,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"So, to clarify, you are saying that there is no good reason why Suits won't dissapear sometime in the future and you're predicting they're the Next\/first to go? (And btw, you want this view changed, why?) I think it's possible, but not likely: Western Suits have established themselves to be the standard attire for businessmen and other workers, in multiple continents. They are not demonstrably losing popularity either. Sure, they could look like something we would not call \"suits\" from todays's POV anymore, but that's a different issue. In terms of comfort, there are more and more people working on making good looking suits more comfortable to wear, so it's certainly at least just as likely that we will see more and more comfortable suits than having them disappear, because it's not like right now people are only buying them because they technically Have to.","human_ref_B":"Guys want to look good. They feel better when they look good. They're more confident when they look good. Others perceive them as being more intelligent, trustworthy, etc... when they look good. And a nice looking, well tailored suit LOOKS GOOD! A nice polo and some jeans just don't do it to the level a suit can, especially for someone without a nice athletic physique. Also, it sounds like the majority of your argument is based on comfort. Well, in a few words, you're wrong. A well tailored suit is really no less comfortable than jeans and button down shirt, IMO. What about a suit isn't comfortable? Too tight around the neck? Get a bigger neck size ya dingus! Pants too tight? Alterations are cheap! I actually prefer dress slacks now because they're a bit cooler than jeans, or at least the ones I buy are. I'm super comfortable in a suit and would have no problem wearing one every day, in fact I often wear them to work just cause. I'm not gonna wear jeans when I'm meeting with a client that's spending thousands of dollars on my services. I care about them and I want to show them IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE that I care! Because there's 50 other people in town that they could have chosen, and might choose next time. I'm not giving them the slightest reason to take their business elsewhere. It really does make an impact, ESPECIALLY during the first impression. It kinda sucked when I made that switch to the tie life, but that's because I was wearing those cheap-ass $20 shirts from Kohl's that only come in S\/M\/L sizes. Nothing REALLY fit well, it just sorta covered my body. Getting properly fitted shirts\/pants\/jackets made all the difference. I wear a tie every work day now, even days when most others are going casual. Sounds like you may need to spend a few more bucks(or just shop around a bit more) and get some nicer fitting dress clothes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14792.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64w826","c_root_id_B":"e64rjcb","created_at_utc_A":1537197271,"created_at_utc_B":1537192931,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Guys want to look good. They feel better when they look good. They're more confident when they look good. Others perceive them as being more intelligent, trustworthy, etc... when they look good. And a nice looking, well tailored suit LOOKS GOOD! A nice polo and some jeans just don't do it to the level a suit can, especially for someone without a nice athletic physique. Also, it sounds like the majority of your argument is based on comfort. Well, in a few words, you're wrong. A well tailored suit is really no less comfortable than jeans and button down shirt, IMO. What about a suit isn't comfortable? Too tight around the neck? Get a bigger neck size ya dingus! Pants too tight? Alterations are cheap! I actually prefer dress slacks now because they're a bit cooler than jeans, or at least the ones I buy are. I'm super comfortable in a suit and would have no problem wearing one every day, in fact I often wear them to work just cause. I'm not gonna wear jeans when I'm meeting with a client that's spending thousands of dollars on my services. I care about them and I want to show them IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE that I care! Because there's 50 other people in town that they could have chosen, and might choose next time. I'm not giving them the slightest reason to take their business elsewhere. It really does make an impact, ESPECIALLY during the first impression. It kinda sucked when I made that switch to the tie life, but that's because I was wearing those cheap-ass $20 shirts from Kohl's that only come in S\/M\/L sizes. Nothing REALLY fit well, it just sorta covered my body. Getting properly fitted shirts\/pants\/jackets made all the difference. I wear a tie every work day now, even days when most others are going casual. Sounds like you may need to spend a few more bucks(or just shop around a bit more) and get some nicer fitting dress clothes.","human_ref_B":"Fashion is, and has always been, no more than a social construct. It\u2019s why white togas (the height of professionalism in Republican Rome) and olive wreaths (a sign of great dignity) aren\u2019t really used now. Function follows form when it comes to what people wear. But you\u2019re also missing *why* fashion exists and is followed. It\u2019s signal economics. Here\u2019s an easy one: In the 17th and 18th centuries it was fashionable to be as pale as possible. Today (or at least in the 70s-90s) it was fashionable to have a tan. Why? Because I\u2019m the 18th century the teeming plebeian masses worked in the field, where they got tans. Which means not having one is a sign that you don\u2019t have to do *that* kind of work. And today the plebeian masses (me included, I\u2019ll note) work in offices. So having a tan means you don\u2019t have to do that kind of job. It\u2019s why tan lines are considered gauche, because a tan line means that you weren\u2019t lounging and tanning, but rather working outside. So what does a suit and tie signal? It\u2019s restrictive, needs to be protected against damage, takes time to learn how to tie a tie, and the tie itself can easily get caught in things. And a good suit is expensive, particularly if it\u2019s well-tailored and sartorially sufficient. In other words: it communicates that you don\u2019t do the kind of manual labor where a full range of motion, clothes which can get dirty, or where you have to worry about getting it caught in things. It communicates both something about the wearer (I have the means to have this entirely frivolous thing, and my work isn\u2019t of a manual nature), and something about the environment. The very things that make it entirely silly are *why* people use them. Now, you\u2019re absolutely *right* that this is purely cultural. And I agree it *should* change. But what about culture has shifted (like with tanning) that would lead a suit to no longer serving its signaling function? It\u2019s the same reason women wear heels. The aesthetics are secondary to what it says about the woman: I don\u2019t have to walk very much, and I have the time to practice walking in heels, hence I\u2019m of a certain standing. If it signals something, even if all it signals is that one can send the signal, it\u2019s likely going to stay in use.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4340.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64jgyi","c_root_id_B":"e64vza6","created_at_utc_A":1537182572,"created_at_utc_B":1537197056,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I work in law firms and suits are work uniforms. (You have to pay for the uniform!) Humans really like uniforms, especially for other people who are serving them. Suits won\u2019t be going away real soon.","human_ref_B":"oz0n >CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. Humanity, unfortunately, has a penchant for imagery. We've had clothes ever since we *could* have clothes. Status is ***always*** correlated with clothes, as titles are easy to forget, names and faces are difficult (apparently). As for going away in a few decades, here are a few counterarguments: 1) Suits can be made out of many, many, many, many materials. Honestly surprised I haven't seen a carbon fiber suit yet. 2) Materials = status, especially in nonwestern cultures. It might not be a suit, but it'd function equivalently as a suit. 3) Images are a hell of a lot easier to understand than text. No translation necessary. Advised, maybe, but not necessary. 4) Sex sells, and from the way I've seen some women shop around for men, once you get to a certain age, you'd rather see dudes in suits than half naked. Dudes in suits = money, status, ability for someone to take care of how they look. 5) Because of #4, dudes will wear suits - it's the business equivalent of a swimsuit competition for 20\/30 somethings for men. Men are either trying to sleep with women or court them for longer term relationships, and suits do the job quite nicely. 6) Let's say that men, overnight, decide, collectively, that suits are equivalent to t-shirts. Impossible, yes, but hear me out. Now let's assume that women remain the same as now. *Men will still wear suits for them.* >For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. What? Togas were one piece and required a pin. Sure leggings and a North Face jacket have become the college uniform for American girls, but those garments are complex to make, and during the summer, outfits usually get more complex, not simpler. Jeans took off because of a couple things: 1) Cotton gin ***massively*** increased cotton production. Jeans were already being made, so they just made more. Around the time the cotton gin hit (edit: *on a massive scale*) (~~1880s\/1890s~~ *1840s\/1850s*), international trade was opening up. By 1940, with reliable steam\/coal transportation, along with the New Deal and World War 1, international trade had ***skyrocketed***. Jeans were in the clothing vocabulary, but barely - they were a functional garment. 2) Jeans didn't take off until the 1960s - white people in America were still wearing khakis and normal pants, and Levi's took advantage of the cheap ass manufacturing available internationally. All of a sudden, jeans went from $70 a pair to $30 a pair. 3) Finally, have you seen jeans for women these days? \"Distressed jeans\" was a look that was quite popular 2-3 years ago (not so much now). American Apparel literally paid people to take belt sanders to perfectly good jeans to rough them up. That's not simple. >Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. Quick list of accessories popular with American white people: 1) Necklaces 2) Watches 3) Pendants 4) Keychains\/car keys 5) Phone cases 6) Rings 7) Bracelets 8) Chokers 9) Hats 10) Scarves 11) Sunhats 12) Sunglasses 13) Handbags I think that's probably $50+ billion dollars of industries right there?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14484.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64jf37","c_root_id_B":"e64jgyi","created_at_utc_A":1537182479,"created_at_utc_B":1537182572,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So, to clarify, you are saying that there is no good reason why Suits won't dissapear sometime in the future and you're predicting they're the Next\/first to go? (And btw, you want this view changed, why?) I think it's possible, but not likely: Western Suits have established themselves to be the standard attire for businessmen and other workers, in multiple continents. They are not demonstrably losing popularity either. Sure, they could look like something we would not call \"suits\" from todays's POV anymore, but that's a different issue. In terms of comfort, there are more and more people working on making good looking suits more comfortable to wear, so it's certainly at least just as likely that we will see more and more comfortable suits than having them disappear, because it's not like right now people are only buying them because they technically Have to.","human_ref_B":"I work in law firms and suits are work uniforms. (You have to pay for the uniform!) Humans really like uniforms, especially for other people who are serving them. Suits won\u2019t be going away real soon.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":93.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64vza6","c_root_id_B":"e64jf37","created_at_utc_A":1537197056,"created_at_utc_B":1537182479,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"oz0n >CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. Humanity, unfortunately, has a penchant for imagery. We've had clothes ever since we *could* have clothes. Status is ***always*** correlated with clothes, as titles are easy to forget, names and faces are difficult (apparently). As for going away in a few decades, here are a few counterarguments: 1) Suits can be made out of many, many, many, many materials. Honestly surprised I haven't seen a carbon fiber suit yet. 2) Materials = status, especially in nonwestern cultures. It might not be a suit, but it'd function equivalently as a suit. 3) Images are a hell of a lot easier to understand than text. No translation necessary. Advised, maybe, but not necessary. 4) Sex sells, and from the way I've seen some women shop around for men, once you get to a certain age, you'd rather see dudes in suits than half naked. Dudes in suits = money, status, ability for someone to take care of how they look. 5) Because of #4, dudes will wear suits - it's the business equivalent of a swimsuit competition for 20\/30 somethings for men. Men are either trying to sleep with women or court them for longer term relationships, and suits do the job quite nicely. 6) Let's say that men, overnight, decide, collectively, that suits are equivalent to t-shirts. Impossible, yes, but hear me out. Now let's assume that women remain the same as now. *Men will still wear suits for them.* >For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. What? Togas were one piece and required a pin. Sure leggings and a North Face jacket have become the college uniform for American girls, but those garments are complex to make, and during the summer, outfits usually get more complex, not simpler. Jeans took off because of a couple things: 1) Cotton gin ***massively*** increased cotton production. Jeans were already being made, so they just made more. Around the time the cotton gin hit (edit: *on a massive scale*) (~~1880s\/1890s~~ *1840s\/1850s*), international trade was opening up. By 1940, with reliable steam\/coal transportation, along with the New Deal and World War 1, international trade had ***skyrocketed***. Jeans were in the clothing vocabulary, but barely - they were a functional garment. 2) Jeans didn't take off until the 1960s - white people in America were still wearing khakis and normal pants, and Levi's took advantage of the cheap ass manufacturing available internationally. All of a sudden, jeans went from $70 a pair to $30 a pair. 3) Finally, have you seen jeans for women these days? \"Distressed jeans\" was a look that was quite popular 2-3 years ago (not so much now). American Apparel literally paid people to take belt sanders to perfectly good jeans to rough them up. That's not simple. >Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. Quick list of accessories popular with American white people: 1) Necklaces 2) Watches 3) Pendants 4) Keychains\/car keys 5) Phone cases 6) Rings 7) Bracelets 8) Chokers 9) Hats 10) Scarves 11) Sunhats 12) Sunglasses 13) Handbags I think that's probably $50+ billion dollars of industries right there?","human_ref_B":"So, to clarify, you are saying that there is no good reason why Suits won't dissapear sometime in the future and you're predicting they're the Next\/first to go? (And btw, you want this view changed, why?) I think it's possible, but not likely: Western Suits have established themselves to be the standard attire for businessmen and other workers, in multiple continents. They are not demonstrably losing popularity either. Sure, they could look like something we would not call \"suits\" from todays's POV anymore, but that's a different issue. In terms of comfort, there are more and more people working on making good looking suits more comfortable to wear, so it's certainly at least just as likely that we will see more and more comfortable suits than having them disappear, because it's not like right now people are only buying them because they technically Have to.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14577.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64rjcb","c_root_id_B":"e64vza6","created_at_utc_A":1537192931,"created_at_utc_B":1537197056,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Fashion is, and has always been, no more than a social construct. It\u2019s why white togas (the height of professionalism in Republican Rome) and olive wreaths (a sign of great dignity) aren\u2019t really used now. Function follows form when it comes to what people wear. But you\u2019re also missing *why* fashion exists and is followed. It\u2019s signal economics. Here\u2019s an easy one: In the 17th and 18th centuries it was fashionable to be as pale as possible. Today (or at least in the 70s-90s) it was fashionable to have a tan. Why? Because I\u2019m the 18th century the teeming plebeian masses worked in the field, where they got tans. Which means not having one is a sign that you don\u2019t have to do *that* kind of work. And today the plebeian masses (me included, I\u2019ll note) work in offices. So having a tan means you don\u2019t have to do that kind of job. It\u2019s why tan lines are considered gauche, because a tan line means that you weren\u2019t lounging and tanning, but rather working outside. So what does a suit and tie signal? It\u2019s restrictive, needs to be protected against damage, takes time to learn how to tie a tie, and the tie itself can easily get caught in things. And a good suit is expensive, particularly if it\u2019s well-tailored and sartorially sufficient. In other words: it communicates that you don\u2019t do the kind of manual labor where a full range of motion, clothes which can get dirty, or where you have to worry about getting it caught in things. It communicates both something about the wearer (I have the means to have this entirely frivolous thing, and my work isn\u2019t of a manual nature), and something about the environment. The very things that make it entirely silly are *why* people use them. Now, you\u2019re absolutely *right* that this is purely cultural. And I agree it *should* change. But what about culture has shifted (like with tanning) that would lead a suit to no longer serving its signaling function? It\u2019s the same reason women wear heels. The aesthetics are secondary to what it says about the woman: I don\u2019t have to walk very much, and I have the time to practice walking in heels, hence I\u2019m of a certain standing. If it signals something, even if all it signals is that one can send the signal, it\u2019s likely going to stay in use.","human_ref_B":"oz0n >CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. Humanity, unfortunately, has a penchant for imagery. We've had clothes ever since we *could* have clothes. Status is ***always*** correlated with clothes, as titles are easy to forget, names and faces are difficult (apparently). As for going away in a few decades, here are a few counterarguments: 1) Suits can be made out of many, many, many, many materials. Honestly surprised I haven't seen a carbon fiber suit yet. 2) Materials = status, especially in nonwestern cultures. It might not be a suit, but it'd function equivalently as a suit. 3) Images are a hell of a lot easier to understand than text. No translation necessary. Advised, maybe, but not necessary. 4) Sex sells, and from the way I've seen some women shop around for men, once you get to a certain age, you'd rather see dudes in suits than half naked. Dudes in suits = money, status, ability for someone to take care of how they look. 5) Because of #4, dudes will wear suits - it's the business equivalent of a swimsuit competition for 20\/30 somethings for men. Men are either trying to sleep with women or court them for longer term relationships, and suits do the job quite nicely. 6) Let's say that men, overnight, decide, collectively, that suits are equivalent to t-shirts. Impossible, yes, but hear me out. Now let's assume that women remain the same as now. *Men will still wear suits for them.* >For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. What? Togas were one piece and required a pin. Sure leggings and a North Face jacket have become the college uniform for American girls, but those garments are complex to make, and during the summer, outfits usually get more complex, not simpler. Jeans took off because of a couple things: 1) Cotton gin ***massively*** increased cotton production. Jeans were already being made, so they just made more. Around the time the cotton gin hit (edit: *on a massive scale*) (~~1880s\/1890s~~ *1840s\/1850s*), international trade was opening up. By 1940, with reliable steam\/coal transportation, along with the New Deal and World War 1, international trade had ***skyrocketed***. Jeans were in the clothing vocabulary, but barely - they were a functional garment. 2) Jeans didn't take off until the 1960s - white people in America were still wearing khakis and normal pants, and Levi's took advantage of the cheap ass manufacturing available internationally. All of a sudden, jeans went from $70 a pair to $30 a pair. 3) Finally, have you seen jeans for women these days? \"Distressed jeans\" was a look that was quite popular 2-3 years ago (not so much now). American Apparel literally paid people to take belt sanders to perfectly good jeans to rough them up. That's not simple. >Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. Quick list of accessories popular with American white people: 1) Necklaces 2) Watches 3) Pendants 4) Keychains\/car keys 5) Phone cases 6) Rings 7) Bracelets 8) Chokers 9) Hats 10) Scarves 11) Sunhats 12) Sunglasses 13) Handbags I think that's probably $50+ billion dollars of industries right there?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4125.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64jf37","c_root_id_B":"e66f2qo","created_at_utc_A":1537182479,"created_at_utc_B":1537246794,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So, to clarify, you are saying that there is no good reason why Suits won't dissapear sometime in the future and you're predicting they're the Next\/first to go? (And btw, you want this view changed, why?) I think it's possible, but not likely: Western Suits have established themselves to be the standard attire for businessmen and other workers, in multiple continents. They are not demonstrably losing popularity either. Sure, they could look like something we would not call \"suits\" from todays's POV anymore, but that's a different issue. In terms of comfort, there are more and more people working on making good looking suits more comfortable to wear, so it's certainly at least just as likely that we will see more and more comfortable suits than having them disappear, because it's not like right now people are only buying them because they technically Have to.","human_ref_B":"you're basically discounting the entire concept of non-verbal communication. so, good luck with that. suits are worn because suits are what society collectively deems to be a (uni)form of non-verbal communication conveying notions of seriousness, solemness, capability, and attentiveness. is that to say that \"the suit\" won't ever be replaced by something else conveying the same? nope. but is that to say that the suit currently fulfills a communicative purpose that won't die anytime soon: yes","labels":0,"seconds_difference":64315.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"9giq0w","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: Males wearing suits to look more professional (including ties, handkerchiefs and other accessories) is largely based on historical social constructs that will be deprecated in a few decades, as there's no real usefulness. From a usefulness perspective clothes serve the purpose of warmness and protection from nudity. There are also many complex secondary purposes such as personal expression and impression. For centuries clothing became simpler and simpler, and garments that once were considered inferior such as jeans are now the norm. There's no good reason why this trend won't continue in the future. Suits will be the first to go. Suits are traditionally chosen when one wants to seem \"professional\", as they tend to be forgiving on body imperfections such as weight and periphery. However nowadays it seems less and less important to dress to impress, and there are other attires that are just as, if not more, comfortable. Also, accessories such as ties don't serve any particular purpose, other than to add style and color to the attire. There are also other ways to do that without a double windsor knot, that will be simpler and more effective.","c_root_id_A":"e64rjcb","c_root_id_B":"e66f2qo","created_at_utc_A":1537192931,"created_at_utc_B":1537246794,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Fashion is, and has always been, no more than a social construct. It\u2019s why white togas (the height of professionalism in Republican Rome) and olive wreaths (a sign of great dignity) aren\u2019t really used now. Function follows form when it comes to what people wear. But you\u2019re also missing *why* fashion exists and is followed. It\u2019s signal economics. Here\u2019s an easy one: In the 17th and 18th centuries it was fashionable to be as pale as possible. Today (or at least in the 70s-90s) it was fashionable to have a tan. Why? Because I\u2019m the 18th century the teeming plebeian masses worked in the field, where they got tans. Which means not having one is a sign that you don\u2019t have to do *that* kind of work. And today the plebeian masses (me included, I\u2019ll note) work in offices. So having a tan means you don\u2019t have to do that kind of job. It\u2019s why tan lines are considered gauche, because a tan line means that you weren\u2019t lounging and tanning, but rather working outside. So what does a suit and tie signal? It\u2019s restrictive, needs to be protected against damage, takes time to learn how to tie a tie, and the tie itself can easily get caught in things. And a good suit is expensive, particularly if it\u2019s well-tailored and sartorially sufficient. In other words: it communicates that you don\u2019t do the kind of manual labor where a full range of motion, clothes which can get dirty, or where you have to worry about getting it caught in things. It communicates both something about the wearer (I have the means to have this entirely frivolous thing, and my work isn\u2019t of a manual nature), and something about the environment. The very things that make it entirely silly are *why* people use them. Now, you\u2019re absolutely *right* that this is purely cultural. And I agree it *should* change. But what about culture has shifted (like with tanning) that would lead a suit to no longer serving its signaling function? It\u2019s the same reason women wear heels. The aesthetics are secondary to what it says about the woman: I don\u2019t have to walk very much, and I have the time to practice walking in heels, hence I\u2019m of a certain standing. If it signals something, even if all it signals is that one can send the signal, it\u2019s likely going to stay in use.","human_ref_B":"you're basically discounting the entire concept of non-verbal communication. so, good luck with that. suits are worn because suits are what society collectively deems to be a (uni)form of non-verbal communication conveying notions of seriousness, solemness, capability, and attentiveness. is that to say that \"the suit\" won't ever be replaced by something else conveying the same? nope. but is that to say that the suit currently fulfills a communicative purpose that won't die anytime soon: yes","labels":0,"seconds_difference":53863.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7xxblk","c_root_id_B":"i7xw239","created_at_utc_A":1652116361,"created_at_utc_B":1652115855,"score_A":16,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"> Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. It may be a little prejudiced, but people don't really have the time and mental energy to figure out all the ethical ramifications for every single situation. Certain \"red flags\" should set off people's warning signs. Perhaps things are ok, but perhaps not. Race and gender are generally things that are both constant throughout life (yes, transgender people exist and should be considered, though most will argue their self-perceived gender is in fact constant through their lives). By \"red flagging\" someone for merely who they were born as, this is a fundamentally dehumanizing act. It's not the same as situational red flagging. > What makes age different? The biggest issue in my mind is that it's hard to consider relationships with a large age differential as a lifelong partnership. If only because life expectancies are so different. One or the other knows that if this relationship is going to last for the long run, then one or the other is going to be a widow(er) for a large chunk of their life. It's hard to see this as a proper way of respecting the other partner. > This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. We can both respect the fact that adults can make decisions for themselves and also respect the fact that they made a godawful decision that is hard to consider one worth respecting. > Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. I think a big consideration in this is whether the relationship is intended to be deeply intertwined for the long run. If some young adult has a kink about dating older, then that's fine as long as it's just for sexual gratification. If they are doing this with the expectation of lifelong partnership, then this can and often is a very short-term decision with no fore-thought of what the future will be like. If an older person knows what this young person's bleak future will be like and chooses to lead them on, then this is a problem.","human_ref_B":"What do you consider shaming, versus just questioning whether or not the age difference might be the source of some friction in a relationship?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":506.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7y65qj","c_root_id_B":"i7y1ydy","created_at_utc_A":1652119927,"created_at_utc_B":1652118213,"score_A":12,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"There is a significant amount of creepy old men who purposefully seek out younger women because they want control. While obviously other relationships with an age gap can exist, this is a red flag worth considering.","human_ref_B":"If you choose a relationship with a power imbalance where they will have less power than you automatically (they are far younger, make way less money, etc) that doesn't make you bad, but you have to deal with the fact that as the person with more power, you will get more scrutiny too. There are benefits amd drawbacks to having the \"upper hand\" in the relationship.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1714.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7y65qj","c_root_id_B":"i7y328w","created_at_utc_A":1652119927,"created_at_utc_B":1652118660,"score_A":12,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There is a significant amount of creepy old men who purposefully seek out younger women because they want control. While obviously other relationships with an age gap can exist, this is a red flag worth considering.","human_ref_B":"Well my first question would be when did the relationship start? Second would be how did the relationship start? Beyond that I don\u2019t really have any other questions because every relationship is different. For example if they met when one was 28 and other 14 myself as with many other people are going to have some concerns, if they met at a bar one night when one was 21 and the other 35 that\u2019s an entirely different situation. Also for the record I\u2019m a man in my late 20s, what I want out of life is incredibly different that what most people in their early 20s want. I wanted to party and run wild in my early 20s and I did and now I\u2019m passed that phase of my life. If I get with someone that is 21 or 22 and wants to party and run wild that relationship isn\u2019t going to be the strongest because I don\u2019t want that. They want to go out every Friday and Saturday night while I just want to stay home and relax.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1267.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7y5tv5","c_root_id_B":"i7y65qj","created_at_utc_A":1652119790,"created_at_utc_B":1652119927,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"because people of different ages literally have way different brain development and traits and abilities and emotional maturity and people of different races dont. are you not aware of the existence of human development?","human_ref_B":"There is a significant amount of creepy old men who purposefully seek out younger women because they want control. While obviously other relationships with an age gap can exist, this is a red flag worth considering.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":137.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7y1ydy","c_root_id_B":"i7ybjk5","created_at_utc_A":1652118213,"created_at_utc_B":1652122127,"score_A":5,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"If you choose a relationship with a power imbalance where they will have less power than you automatically (they are far younger, make way less money, etc) that doesn't make you bad, but you have to deal with the fact that as the person with more power, you will get more scrutiny too. There are benefits amd drawbacks to having the \"upper hand\" in the relationship.","human_ref_B":"I think you actually have mischaracterized a lot of these kinds of exchanges in your example, but there is a kernel of truth there that I\u2019d like to point out, that is often a huge problem in these kinds of relationships. Yes, a 24 year old and a 38 year old are both adults. But they are at *different points* of adulthood and are more likely to have different priorities than more similarly-aged couples. The 38 year old partner is thinking about money and career. He wants to get on the property ladder. If he wants kids, he is, in a sense, running out of time to have them. He wants to be financially comfortable and settled as he enters middle age. He has been in his career for quite some time now. The 24 year old wants affection and personal connection. She might not feel like she absolutely has to buy a house and\/or start having kids rightthefucknow. Her age group peers are still figuring out what they\u2019re doing career-wise, and are just now getting their foot in the door. This is not to say that these values can\u2019t overlap in these age groups \u2014 in many cases they do. But what is *most* important? What do we prioritize at varying points in our lives? What are the qualities we look for in a partner when we\u2019re 24? How about when we\u2019re 38? It\u2019s not necessarily guaranteed, but the priorities gap is way more common when two people are at different stages of adulthood.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3914.0,"score_ratio":2.2} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7y328w","c_root_id_B":"i7ybjk5","created_at_utc_A":1652118660,"created_at_utc_B":1652122127,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Well my first question would be when did the relationship start? Second would be how did the relationship start? Beyond that I don\u2019t really have any other questions because every relationship is different. For example if they met when one was 28 and other 14 myself as with many other people are going to have some concerns, if they met at a bar one night when one was 21 and the other 35 that\u2019s an entirely different situation. Also for the record I\u2019m a man in my late 20s, what I want out of life is incredibly different that what most people in their early 20s want. I wanted to party and run wild in my early 20s and I did and now I\u2019m passed that phase of my life. If I get with someone that is 21 or 22 and wants to party and run wild that relationship isn\u2019t going to be the strongest because I don\u2019t want that. They want to go out every Friday and Saturday night while I just want to stay home and relax.","human_ref_B":"I think you actually have mischaracterized a lot of these kinds of exchanges in your example, but there is a kernel of truth there that I\u2019d like to point out, that is often a huge problem in these kinds of relationships. Yes, a 24 year old and a 38 year old are both adults. But they are at *different points* of adulthood and are more likely to have different priorities than more similarly-aged couples. The 38 year old partner is thinking about money and career. He wants to get on the property ladder. If he wants kids, he is, in a sense, running out of time to have them. He wants to be financially comfortable and settled as he enters middle age. He has been in his career for quite some time now. The 24 year old wants affection and personal connection. She might not feel like she absolutely has to buy a house and\/or start having kids rightthefucknow. Her age group peers are still figuring out what they\u2019re doing career-wise, and are just now getting their foot in the door. This is not to say that these values can\u2019t overlap in these age groups \u2014 in many cases they do. But what is *most* important? What do we prioritize at varying points in our lives? What are the qualities we look for in a partner when we\u2019re 24? How about when we\u2019re 38? It\u2019s not necessarily guaranteed, but the priorities gap is way more common when two people are at different stages of adulthood.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3467.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7y5tv5","c_root_id_B":"i7ybjk5","created_at_utc_A":1652119790,"created_at_utc_B":1652122127,"score_A":4,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"because people of different ages literally have way different brain development and traits and abilities and emotional maturity and people of different races dont. are you not aware of the existence of human development?","human_ref_B":"I think you actually have mischaracterized a lot of these kinds of exchanges in your example, but there is a kernel of truth there that I\u2019d like to point out, that is often a huge problem in these kinds of relationships. Yes, a 24 year old and a 38 year old are both adults. But they are at *different points* of adulthood and are more likely to have different priorities than more similarly-aged couples. The 38 year old partner is thinking about money and career. He wants to get on the property ladder. If he wants kids, he is, in a sense, running out of time to have them. He wants to be financially comfortable and settled as he enters middle age. He has been in his career for quite some time now. The 24 year old wants affection and personal connection. She might not feel like she absolutely has to buy a house and\/or start having kids rightthefucknow. Her age group peers are still figuring out what they\u2019re doing career-wise, and are just now getting their foot in the door. This is not to say that these values can\u2019t overlap in these age groups \u2014 in many cases they do. But what is *most* important? What do we prioritize at varying points in our lives? What are the qualities we look for in a partner when we\u2019re 24? How about when we\u2019re 38? It\u2019s not necessarily guaranteed, but the priorities gap is way more common when two people are at different stages of adulthood.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2337.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7yy98e","c_root_id_B":"i7y1ydy","created_at_utc_A":1652131495,"created_at_utc_B":1652118213,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Here is a strawman concocted of things I personally see more often (and have encountered in my real life): *Person: I (19F) am in a relationship with my boyfriend (30M). We've been dating for 3 years. We're having (various examples of trivial problems) in our relationship. Lately when we fight about these problems he calls me immature and tells me I don't know what I'm talking about.* Bringing up the power imbalance, vast difference in age, etc, are all relevant here. In a relationship between two 30 year olds, this would just be belittling. But an older adult doing this to a barely-adult partner is revealing of the fact that they're aware of a difference in maturity and experience, and will deny this exists when things are good (often flattering the younger partner's maturity \"for their age\"), then tearing this away when criticized. It's often the case - again, in my anecdotal experience - that these relationships started inappropriately, such as when the younger partner was still a minor, when there was a significant moral and ethical issue (I went to high school with a girl who was in a long-term relationship with her 40-something year old therapist which began while a minor and continued into adulthood). It's much less common for someone to say *My (40 F) husband (50M) are having some issues, blah blah blah -* and be met with \"run, that age difference is bad!\". As you get older, the difference in power and maturity in wide gaps often aren't as prominent, unless other factors like wealth are at play. Purely being in a relationship with an age gap is not always indicative of it being a red flag, but it's certainly worth pointing out when other issues come up, AND is worth bringing up with an older adult consistently seeks out relationships with exclusively significantly younger people. There are many people who enjoy the imbalance, the naivety, etc that comes with a younger partner, and struggle to impress and attract people their age because the red flags in their other behavior may be more apparent to someone with more life and dating experience.","human_ref_B":"If you choose a relationship with a power imbalance where they will have less power than you automatically (they are far younger, make way less money, etc) that doesn't make you bad, but you have to deal with the fact that as the person with more power, you will get more scrutiny too. There are benefits amd drawbacks to having the \"upper hand\" in the relationship.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13282.0,"score_ratio":1.6} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7yy98e","c_root_id_B":"i7y328w","created_at_utc_A":1652131495,"created_at_utc_B":1652118660,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Here is a strawman concocted of things I personally see more often (and have encountered in my real life): *Person: I (19F) am in a relationship with my boyfriend (30M). We've been dating for 3 years. We're having (various examples of trivial problems) in our relationship. Lately when we fight about these problems he calls me immature and tells me I don't know what I'm talking about.* Bringing up the power imbalance, vast difference in age, etc, are all relevant here. In a relationship between two 30 year olds, this would just be belittling. But an older adult doing this to a barely-adult partner is revealing of the fact that they're aware of a difference in maturity and experience, and will deny this exists when things are good (often flattering the younger partner's maturity \"for their age\"), then tearing this away when criticized. It's often the case - again, in my anecdotal experience - that these relationships started inappropriately, such as when the younger partner was still a minor, when there was a significant moral and ethical issue (I went to high school with a girl who was in a long-term relationship with her 40-something year old therapist which began while a minor and continued into adulthood). It's much less common for someone to say *My (40 F) husband (50M) are having some issues, blah blah blah -* and be met with \"run, that age difference is bad!\". As you get older, the difference in power and maturity in wide gaps often aren't as prominent, unless other factors like wealth are at play. Purely being in a relationship with an age gap is not always indicative of it being a red flag, but it's certainly worth pointing out when other issues come up, AND is worth bringing up with an older adult consistently seeks out relationships with exclusively significantly younger people. There are many people who enjoy the imbalance, the naivety, etc that comes with a younger partner, and struggle to impress and attract people their age because the red flags in their other behavior may be more apparent to someone with more life and dating experience.","human_ref_B":"Well my first question would be when did the relationship start? Second would be how did the relationship start? Beyond that I don\u2019t really have any other questions because every relationship is different. For example if they met when one was 28 and other 14 myself as with many other people are going to have some concerns, if they met at a bar one night when one was 21 and the other 35 that\u2019s an entirely different situation. Also for the record I\u2019m a man in my late 20s, what I want out of life is incredibly different that what most people in their early 20s want. I wanted to party and run wild in my early 20s and I did and now I\u2019m passed that phase of my life. If I get with someone that is 21 or 22 and wants to party and run wild that relationship isn\u2019t going to be the strongest because I don\u2019t want that. They want to go out every Friday and Saturday night while I just want to stay home and relax.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12835.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7yy98e","c_root_id_B":"i7y5tv5","created_at_utc_A":1652131495,"created_at_utc_B":1652119790,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Here is a strawman concocted of things I personally see more often (and have encountered in my real life): *Person: I (19F) am in a relationship with my boyfriend (30M). We've been dating for 3 years. We're having (various examples of trivial problems) in our relationship. Lately when we fight about these problems he calls me immature and tells me I don't know what I'm talking about.* Bringing up the power imbalance, vast difference in age, etc, are all relevant here. In a relationship between two 30 year olds, this would just be belittling. But an older adult doing this to a barely-adult partner is revealing of the fact that they're aware of a difference in maturity and experience, and will deny this exists when things are good (often flattering the younger partner's maturity \"for their age\"), then tearing this away when criticized. It's often the case - again, in my anecdotal experience - that these relationships started inappropriately, such as when the younger partner was still a minor, when there was a significant moral and ethical issue (I went to high school with a girl who was in a long-term relationship with her 40-something year old therapist which began while a minor and continued into adulthood). It's much less common for someone to say *My (40 F) husband (50M) are having some issues, blah blah blah -* and be met with \"run, that age difference is bad!\". As you get older, the difference in power and maturity in wide gaps often aren't as prominent, unless other factors like wealth are at play. Purely being in a relationship with an age gap is not always indicative of it being a red flag, but it's certainly worth pointing out when other issues come up, AND is worth bringing up with an older adult consistently seeks out relationships with exclusively significantly younger people. There are many people who enjoy the imbalance, the naivety, etc that comes with a younger partner, and struggle to impress and attract people their age because the red flags in their other behavior may be more apparent to someone with more life and dating experience.","human_ref_B":"because people of different ages literally have way different brain development and traits and abilities and emotional maturity and people of different races dont. are you not aware of the existence of human development?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11705.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7yy98e","c_root_id_B":"i7yd5wk","created_at_utc_A":1652131495,"created_at_utc_B":1652122790,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Here is a strawman concocted of things I personally see more often (and have encountered in my real life): *Person: I (19F) am in a relationship with my boyfriend (30M). We've been dating for 3 years. We're having (various examples of trivial problems) in our relationship. Lately when we fight about these problems he calls me immature and tells me I don't know what I'm talking about.* Bringing up the power imbalance, vast difference in age, etc, are all relevant here. In a relationship between two 30 year olds, this would just be belittling. But an older adult doing this to a barely-adult partner is revealing of the fact that they're aware of a difference in maturity and experience, and will deny this exists when things are good (often flattering the younger partner's maturity \"for their age\"), then tearing this away when criticized. It's often the case - again, in my anecdotal experience - that these relationships started inappropriately, such as when the younger partner was still a minor, when there was a significant moral and ethical issue (I went to high school with a girl who was in a long-term relationship with her 40-something year old therapist which began while a minor and continued into adulthood). It's much less common for someone to say *My (40 F) husband (50M) are having some issues, blah blah blah -* and be met with \"run, that age difference is bad!\". As you get older, the difference in power and maturity in wide gaps often aren't as prominent, unless other factors like wealth are at play. Purely being in a relationship with an age gap is not always indicative of it being a red flag, but it's certainly worth pointing out when other issues come up, AND is worth bringing up with an older adult consistently seeks out relationships with exclusively significantly younger people. There are many people who enjoy the imbalance, the naivety, etc that comes with a younger partner, and struggle to impress and attract people their age because the red flags in their other behavior may be more apparent to someone with more life and dating experience.","human_ref_B":">Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? This is just pedantic, but \"immutable\" means unchanging, and age is literally constantly changing. It's true that people don't choose when they are born\/what age they are, but age is the opposite of immutable. As to large age gaps in relationships, I think that you'll see fewer people have issues with them as the lower of the two ages gets higher. At that point, the likelihood of problematic power dynamics or other unhealthy aspects of the relationship goes down. By the time the younger person is 30, or even in their late twenties, it isn't something you will see nearly as much pushback on. However, when you have someone who is freshly out of school (be it high school or college), there is almost inherently a power dynamic regardless of emotional maturity. That young person is still (in almost all cases) trying to figure out adult life, working their first full-time job, likely living on their own\/not in campus housing for the first time, is not financially stable yet, etc. These are all things that are likely not true of the person who is significantly older. Financial stability, job stability, life experience, etc. do play into relationship dynamics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8705.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7ykgx6","c_root_id_B":"i7yy98e","created_at_utc_A":1652125762,"created_at_utc_B":1652131495,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Frankly, I think that nobody should be shamed for any relationship that is consensual between both parties. However, consent is a ***DICEY*** subject, and power dynamics complicate things drastically. Age happens to play a role in power dynamics, so people are correct to, at minimum, be suspicious of major age discrepancies (especially proportional, a 25-year-old should almost never date an 18-year-old, though at 32 and 25 that gap is barely even noteworthy). However, being prejudicial is almost always a bad idea. Better to ascertain facts and then make a judgement.","human_ref_B":"Here is a strawman concocted of things I personally see more often (and have encountered in my real life): *Person: I (19F) am in a relationship with my boyfriend (30M). We've been dating for 3 years. We're having (various examples of trivial problems) in our relationship. Lately when we fight about these problems he calls me immature and tells me I don't know what I'm talking about.* Bringing up the power imbalance, vast difference in age, etc, are all relevant here. In a relationship between two 30 year olds, this would just be belittling. But an older adult doing this to a barely-adult partner is revealing of the fact that they're aware of a difference in maturity and experience, and will deny this exists when things are good (often flattering the younger partner's maturity \"for their age\"), then tearing this away when criticized. It's often the case - again, in my anecdotal experience - that these relationships started inappropriately, such as when the younger partner was still a minor, when there was a significant moral and ethical issue (I went to high school with a girl who was in a long-term relationship with her 40-something year old therapist which began while a minor and continued into adulthood). It's much less common for someone to say *My (40 F) husband (50M) are having some issues, blah blah blah -* and be met with \"run, that age difference is bad!\". As you get older, the difference in power and maturity in wide gaps often aren't as prominent, unless other factors like wealth are at play. Purely being in a relationship with an age gap is not always indicative of it being a red flag, but it's certainly worth pointing out when other issues come up, AND is worth bringing up with an older adult consistently seeks out relationships with exclusively significantly younger people. There are many people who enjoy the imbalance, the naivety, etc that comes with a younger partner, and struggle to impress and attract people their age because the red flags in their other behavior may be more apparent to someone with more life and dating experience.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5733.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7yy98e","c_root_id_B":"i7yqqpp","created_at_utc_A":1652131495,"created_at_utc_B":1652128332,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Here is a strawman concocted of things I personally see more often (and have encountered in my real life): *Person: I (19F) am in a relationship with my boyfriend (30M). We've been dating for 3 years. We're having (various examples of trivial problems) in our relationship. Lately when we fight about these problems he calls me immature and tells me I don't know what I'm talking about.* Bringing up the power imbalance, vast difference in age, etc, are all relevant here. In a relationship between two 30 year olds, this would just be belittling. But an older adult doing this to a barely-adult partner is revealing of the fact that they're aware of a difference in maturity and experience, and will deny this exists when things are good (often flattering the younger partner's maturity \"for their age\"), then tearing this away when criticized. It's often the case - again, in my anecdotal experience - that these relationships started inappropriately, such as when the younger partner was still a minor, when there was a significant moral and ethical issue (I went to high school with a girl who was in a long-term relationship with her 40-something year old therapist which began while a minor and continued into adulthood). It's much less common for someone to say *My (40 F) husband (50M) are having some issues, blah blah blah -* and be met with \"run, that age difference is bad!\". As you get older, the difference in power and maturity in wide gaps often aren't as prominent, unless other factors like wealth are at play. Purely being in a relationship with an age gap is not always indicative of it being a red flag, but it's certainly worth pointing out when other issues come up, AND is worth bringing up with an older adult consistently seeks out relationships with exclusively significantly younger people. There are many people who enjoy the imbalance, the naivety, etc that comes with a younger partner, and struggle to impress and attract people their age because the red flags in their other behavior may be more apparent to someone with more life and dating experience.","human_ref_B":"In this post you are shaming Redditor1 and Redditor2 from your story and making fun of their moral beliefs because they are different from your own. At the end of the day people have a right to spout off their personal opinion even if that includes \u201cI think you\u2019re going to hell and you should repent!\u201d And you have the right to tell them to stop being jerks and that you think they\u2019re wrong. If however your personal morality doesn\u2019t permit you to tell other people that you think they\u2019re wrong\u2026well then I don\u2019t think you should be telling other people that they\u2019re wrong. I kind of think _everybody_ is in the wrong here. lol","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3163.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7z3v0b","c_root_id_B":"i7y328w","created_at_utc_A":1652133906,"created_at_utc_B":1652118660,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think generally it is more common the younger person is coming to Reddit for advice about their partner's \"bad\" behavior. That context matters. My best friend has an age difference that ngl, was pretty inappropriate. That being said if she's coming to me about general advice I don't bring up the age gap. If she said \"He told me to believe him because he knows better\" its definitely reason to bring up the age gap. People feel okay judging the age gap because the context given is usually something like \"Partner B is being [insert unreasonable or manipulative behavior here] oh and btw I'm 28 he's 42 and we have a 10 year old child\" So I think generally people don't think age gaps are inherently creepy (unless the younger person is like 18 and 1 day old). I think we see some power imbalance or manipulation and then the age difference is context that helps possibly explain the behavior. In that case, the age difference is simply a proxy to say \"there's a power imbalance here\". You also bring up race. There are instances in relationship subs where OP will talk about not being accepted by their spouses family. When people ask \"is this interracial?\" it's because they are looking for context to explain the behavior. Doesn't mean every interracial relationship is doomed or unequal, it's just context to the situation. Source: r\/relationship_advice advice giver for 2 years","human_ref_B":"Well my first question would be when did the relationship start? Second would be how did the relationship start? Beyond that I don\u2019t really have any other questions because every relationship is different. For example if they met when one was 28 and other 14 myself as with many other people are going to have some concerns, if they met at a bar one night when one was 21 and the other 35 that\u2019s an entirely different situation. Also for the record I\u2019m a man in my late 20s, what I want out of life is incredibly different that what most people in their early 20s want. I wanted to party and run wild in my early 20s and I did and now I\u2019m passed that phase of my life. If I get with someone that is 21 or 22 and wants to party and run wild that relationship isn\u2019t going to be the strongest because I don\u2019t want that. They want to go out every Friday and Saturday night while I just want to stay home and relax.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15246.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7yd5wk","c_root_id_B":"i7z3v0b","created_at_utc_A":1652122790,"created_at_utc_B":1652133906,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? This is just pedantic, but \"immutable\" means unchanging, and age is literally constantly changing. It's true that people don't choose when they are born\/what age they are, but age is the opposite of immutable. As to large age gaps in relationships, I think that you'll see fewer people have issues with them as the lower of the two ages gets higher. At that point, the likelihood of problematic power dynamics or other unhealthy aspects of the relationship goes down. By the time the younger person is 30, or even in their late twenties, it isn't something you will see nearly as much pushback on. However, when you have someone who is freshly out of school (be it high school or college), there is almost inherently a power dynamic regardless of emotional maturity. That young person is still (in almost all cases) trying to figure out adult life, working their first full-time job, likely living on their own\/not in campus housing for the first time, is not financially stable yet, etc. These are all things that are likely not true of the person who is significantly older. Financial stability, job stability, life experience, etc. do play into relationship dynamics.","human_ref_B":"I think generally it is more common the younger person is coming to Reddit for advice about their partner's \"bad\" behavior. That context matters. My best friend has an age difference that ngl, was pretty inappropriate. That being said if she's coming to me about general advice I don't bring up the age gap. If she said \"He told me to believe him because he knows better\" its definitely reason to bring up the age gap. People feel okay judging the age gap because the context given is usually something like \"Partner B is being [insert unreasonable or manipulative behavior here] oh and btw I'm 28 he's 42 and we have a 10 year old child\" So I think generally people don't think age gaps are inherently creepy (unless the younger person is like 18 and 1 day old). I think we see some power imbalance or manipulation and then the age difference is context that helps possibly explain the behavior. In that case, the age difference is simply a proxy to say \"there's a power imbalance here\". You also bring up race. There are instances in relationship subs where OP will talk about not being accepted by their spouses family. When people ask \"is this interracial?\" it's because they are looking for context to explain the behavior. Doesn't mean every interracial relationship is doomed or unequal, it's just context to the situation. Source: r\/relationship_advice advice giver for 2 years","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11116.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7ykgx6","c_root_id_B":"i7z3v0b","created_at_utc_A":1652125762,"created_at_utc_B":1652133906,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Frankly, I think that nobody should be shamed for any relationship that is consensual between both parties. However, consent is a ***DICEY*** subject, and power dynamics complicate things drastically. Age happens to play a role in power dynamics, so people are correct to, at minimum, be suspicious of major age discrepancies (especially proportional, a 25-year-old should almost never date an 18-year-old, though at 32 and 25 that gap is barely even noteworthy). However, being prejudicial is almost always a bad idea. Better to ascertain facts and then make a judgement.","human_ref_B":"I think generally it is more common the younger person is coming to Reddit for advice about their partner's \"bad\" behavior. That context matters. My best friend has an age difference that ngl, was pretty inappropriate. That being said if she's coming to me about general advice I don't bring up the age gap. If she said \"He told me to believe him because he knows better\" its definitely reason to bring up the age gap. People feel okay judging the age gap because the context given is usually something like \"Partner B is being [insert unreasonable or manipulative behavior here] oh and btw I'm 28 he's 42 and we have a 10 year old child\" So I think generally people don't think age gaps are inherently creepy (unless the younger person is like 18 and 1 day old). I think we see some power imbalance or manipulation and then the age difference is context that helps possibly explain the behavior. In that case, the age difference is simply a proxy to say \"there's a power imbalance here\". You also bring up race. There are instances in relationship subs where OP will talk about not being accepted by their spouses family. When people ask \"is this interracial?\" it's because they are looking for context to explain the behavior. Doesn't mean every interracial relationship is doomed or unequal, it's just context to the situation. Source: r\/relationship_advice advice giver for 2 years","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8144.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7yqqpp","c_root_id_B":"i7z3v0b","created_at_utc_A":1652128332,"created_at_utc_B":1652133906,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In this post you are shaming Redditor1 and Redditor2 from your story and making fun of their moral beliefs because they are different from your own. At the end of the day people have a right to spout off their personal opinion even if that includes \u201cI think you\u2019re going to hell and you should repent!\u201d And you have the right to tell them to stop being jerks and that you think they\u2019re wrong. If however your personal morality doesn\u2019t permit you to tell other people that you think they\u2019re wrong\u2026well then I don\u2019t think you should be telling other people that they\u2019re wrong. I kind of think _everybody_ is in the wrong here. lol","human_ref_B":"I think generally it is more common the younger person is coming to Reddit for advice about their partner's \"bad\" behavior. That context matters. My best friend has an age difference that ngl, was pretty inappropriate. That being said if she's coming to me about general advice I don't bring up the age gap. If she said \"He told me to believe him because he knows better\" its definitely reason to bring up the age gap. People feel okay judging the age gap because the context given is usually something like \"Partner B is being [insert unreasonable or manipulative behavior here] oh and btw I'm 28 he's 42 and we have a 10 year old child\" So I think generally people don't think age gaps are inherently creepy (unless the younger person is like 18 and 1 day old). I think we see some power imbalance or manipulation and then the age difference is context that helps possibly explain the behavior. In that case, the age difference is simply a proxy to say \"there's a power imbalance here\". You also bring up race. There are instances in relationship subs where OP will talk about not being accepted by their spouses family. When people ask \"is this interracial?\" it's because they are looking for context to explain the behavior. Doesn't mean every interracial relationship is doomed or unequal, it's just context to the situation. Source: r\/relationship_advice advice giver for 2 years","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5574.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ulvt6j","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"CMV: It is wrong to shame people in relationships with a significant age gap I\u2019ve noticed that a lot of people on Reddit feel comfortable characterizing romantic relationships with a large age gap as \u201ccreepy\u201d. Let me create a bit of a straw man here. Has anyone ever seen an exchange like this on Reddit?: *OP \u2013 I\u2019m a 24-year-old female and I\u2019m having issues with my 38-year-old male partner focusing too much on work.* *He comes home stressed and exhausted and often doesn\u2019t have time for affection and conversation.* *When I bring up my concerns, he says that he\u2019s burning the candle at both ends and, he\u2019s doing the best he can.* *Am I being unreasonable here?* *Redditor 1 \u2013 First of all, your bf is a total creep.* *There\u2019s a power differential here and he\u2019s gaslighting you.* *Redditor 2 \u2013 Eeewww!* *24 and 38!* *Yuck!* *Get out of there as soon as you can!* I think I have that about right. If anyone feels that I have mischaracterized such exchanges, please let me know. Ok, now that we have established that, I\u2019m going to say that I find the language used by Redditors 1 and 2 to be highly problematic. Why is it OK to dismiss the validity of a relationship out of hand simply based on an immutable trait like age? It wouldn\u2019t be OK to discriminate so blatantly against someone based on race or gender. What makes age different? I suppose I understand the concept of power differentials in theory but in practice people mature at dramatically different rates. There are people who are pretty much all grown up in their early 20s, there are people who never really get the adult thing figured out. I think we have all met people who fall into either category too. Discriminating on age seems completely arbitrary to me. This is why we should just accept the fact that if two adults are in a consensual relationship that they find mutually fulfilling we should avoid using judgmental language. To do otherwise, is to engage in prejudice. Also, just to get this out of the way, I personally am pansexual (check out username), I had sexual relations with many different races, genders, sizes and of ages that range from 25 years older to 18 years younger than myself. I find sex to be a very healthy and wholesome activity and I think people are way too uptight about it. So, I know of what I speak. All right, change my view people. Why is it OK to shame some people for their sexual decisions and not others?","c_root_id_A":"i7y5tv5","c_root_id_B":"i7y328w","created_at_utc_A":1652119790,"created_at_utc_B":1652118660,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"because people of different ages literally have way different brain development and traits and abilities and emotional maturity and people of different races dont. are you not aware of the existence of human development?","human_ref_B":"Well my first question would be when did the relationship start? Second would be how did the relationship start? Beyond that I don\u2019t really have any other questions because every relationship is different. For example if they met when one was 28 and other 14 myself as with many other people are going to have some concerns, if they met at a bar one night when one was 21 and the other 35 that\u2019s an entirely different situation. Also for the record I\u2019m a man in my late 20s, what I want out of life is incredibly different that what most people in their early 20s want. I wanted to party and run wild in my early 20s and I did and now I\u2019m passed that phase of my life. If I get with someone that is 21 or 22 and wants to party and run wild that relationship isn\u2019t going to be the strongest because I don\u2019t want that. They want to go out every Friday and Saturday night while I just want to stay home and relax.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1130.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"9nbpco","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The concept behind \"Believe all women\" is the same concept we apply to all other crimes In a normal criminal case, an allegation is made, authorities TAKE THAT ALLEGATION SERIOUSLY, then conduct an investigation, and if evidence is found, arrest the suspect(s), hold a trial, and in the event of a guilty verdict or plea, apply sentencing. Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime. There's still an entire legal framework through which people are investigated, convicted, and sentenced. And the vast majority of citizens seem to believe that system works well. The current trend of famous figures stepping down after being accused of sexual assault is primarily a result of them HAVING DONE THOSE THINGS and feeling shame\/guilt\/remorse about it. (And\/or a desire to avoid an investigation that could turn up worse crimes I suppose.) \"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. It's just a request\/demand that women's allegations be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. And by taking those allegations seriously, hopefully more women will feel comfortable reporting events to appropriate authorities when they happen, rather than waiting decades, or never reporting them at all. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e7l354i","c_root_id_B":"e7l2o7o","created_at_utc_A":1539278513,"created_at_utc_B":1539278135,"score_A":86,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/11\/28\/opinion\/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html > ... Emily Lindin, a columnist at Teen Vogue, summed up this view concisely last week on Twitter. \u201cI\u2019m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault\/harassment allegations,\u201d she wrote. \u201cIf some innocent men\u2019s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.\u201d ... More generally, I tend to think that \"Believe All Women\" is not about taking allegations of sexual misconduct seriously, but about the desire to see people who make those allegations treated more sensitively. In other words, I think it's not about \"how the allegations are handled\" but about \"how the accusers are treated.\" Which brings me to this: Like many political slogans - \"Believe All Women\" is ill-defined. The meaning is left vague so that everyone can read what they want into it. And, maybe the slogan isn't popular because it has any particular meaning, but because it offers people who believe that injustice is being visited on women a way to fantasize about a just world.","human_ref_B":"So if a woman says a man is a rapist, you can assume that man is a rapist while also assuming he is innocent of all charges until they are proven in a court of law? ​","labels":1,"seconds_difference":378.0,"score_ratio":3.0714285714} {"post_id":"9nbpco","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The concept behind \"Believe all women\" is the same concept we apply to all other crimes In a normal criminal case, an allegation is made, authorities TAKE THAT ALLEGATION SERIOUSLY, then conduct an investigation, and if evidence is found, arrest the suspect(s), hold a trial, and in the event of a guilty verdict or plea, apply sentencing. Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime. There's still an entire legal framework through which people are investigated, convicted, and sentenced. And the vast majority of citizens seem to believe that system works well. The current trend of famous figures stepping down after being accused of sexual assault is primarily a result of them HAVING DONE THOSE THINGS and feeling shame\/guilt\/remorse about it. (And\/or a desire to avoid an investigation that could turn up worse crimes I suppose.) \"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. It's just a request\/demand that women's allegations be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. And by taking those allegations seriously, hopefully more women will feel comfortable reporting events to appropriate authorities when they happen, rather than waiting decades, or never reporting them at all. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e7l1b3o","c_root_id_B":"e7l354i","created_at_utc_A":1539277025,"created_at_utc_B":1539278513,"score_A":16,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":">Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime. Except they are. If a guy is accused of rape more than likely his name will be released and anytime you google his name that accusation will pop up. Even if he's innocent.","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/11\/28\/opinion\/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html > ... Emily Lindin, a columnist at Teen Vogue, summed up this view concisely last week on Twitter. \u201cI\u2019m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault\/harassment allegations,\u201d she wrote. \u201cIf some innocent men\u2019s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.\u201d ... More generally, I tend to think that \"Believe All Women\" is not about taking allegations of sexual misconduct seriously, but about the desire to see people who make those allegations treated more sensitively. In other words, I think it's not about \"how the allegations are handled\" but about \"how the accusers are treated.\" Which brings me to this: Like many political slogans - \"Believe All Women\" is ill-defined. The meaning is left vague so that everyone can read what they want into it. And, maybe the slogan isn't popular because it has any particular meaning, but because it offers people who believe that injustice is being visited on women a way to fantasize about a just world.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1488.0,"score_ratio":5.375} {"post_id":"9nbpco","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The concept behind \"Believe all women\" is the same concept we apply to all other crimes In a normal criminal case, an allegation is made, authorities TAKE THAT ALLEGATION SERIOUSLY, then conduct an investigation, and if evidence is found, arrest the suspect(s), hold a trial, and in the event of a guilty verdict or plea, apply sentencing. Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime. There's still an entire legal framework through which people are investigated, convicted, and sentenced. And the vast majority of citizens seem to believe that system works well. The current trend of famous figures stepping down after being accused of sexual assault is primarily a result of them HAVING DONE THOSE THINGS and feeling shame\/guilt\/remorse about it. (And\/or a desire to avoid an investigation that could turn up worse crimes I suppose.) \"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. It's just a request\/demand that women's allegations be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. And by taking those allegations seriously, hopefully more women will feel comfortable reporting events to appropriate authorities when they happen, rather than waiting decades, or never reporting them at all. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e7l2c8a","c_root_id_B":"e7l354i","created_at_utc_A":1539277867,"created_at_utc_B":1539278513,"score_A":9,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":">\"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. It's just a request\/demand that women's allegations be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. Do you have specific examples in mind where the allegation was not taken seriously, and was instead dismissed out of hand?","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/11\/28\/opinion\/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html > ... Emily Lindin, a columnist at Teen Vogue, summed up this view concisely last week on Twitter. \u201cI\u2019m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault\/harassment allegations,\u201d she wrote. \u201cIf some innocent men\u2019s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.\u201d ... More generally, I tend to think that \"Believe All Women\" is not about taking allegations of sexual misconduct seriously, but about the desire to see people who make those allegations treated more sensitively. In other words, I think it's not about \"how the allegations are handled\" but about \"how the accusers are treated.\" Which brings me to this: Like many political slogans - \"Believe All Women\" is ill-defined. The meaning is left vague so that everyone can read what they want into it. And, maybe the slogan isn't popular because it has any particular meaning, but because it offers people who believe that injustice is being visited on women a way to fantasize about a just world.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":646.0,"score_ratio":9.5555555556} {"post_id":"9nbpco","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The concept behind \"Believe all women\" is the same concept we apply to all other crimes In a normal criminal case, an allegation is made, authorities TAKE THAT ALLEGATION SERIOUSLY, then conduct an investigation, and if evidence is found, arrest the suspect(s), hold a trial, and in the event of a guilty verdict or plea, apply sentencing. Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime. There's still an entire legal framework through which people are investigated, convicted, and sentenced. And the vast majority of citizens seem to believe that system works well. The current trend of famous figures stepping down after being accused of sexual assault is primarily a result of them HAVING DONE THOSE THINGS and feeling shame\/guilt\/remorse about it. (And\/or a desire to avoid an investigation that could turn up worse crimes I suppose.) \"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. It's just a request\/demand that women's allegations be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. And by taking those allegations seriously, hopefully more women will feel comfortable reporting events to appropriate authorities when they happen, rather than waiting decades, or never reporting them at all. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e7l2o7o","c_root_id_B":"e7l1b3o","created_at_utc_A":1539278135,"created_at_utc_B":1539277025,"score_A":28,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"So if a woman says a man is a rapist, you can assume that man is a rapist while also assuming he is innocent of all charges until they are proven in a court of law? ​","human_ref_B":">Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime. Except they are. If a guy is accused of rape more than likely his name will be released and anytime you google his name that accusation will pop up. Even if he's innocent.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1110.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"9nbpco","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The concept behind \"Believe all women\" is the same concept we apply to all other crimes In a normal criminal case, an allegation is made, authorities TAKE THAT ALLEGATION SERIOUSLY, then conduct an investigation, and if evidence is found, arrest the suspect(s), hold a trial, and in the event of a guilty verdict or plea, apply sentencing. Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime. There's still an entire legal framework through which people are investigated, convicted, and sentenced. And the vast majority of citizens seem to believe that system works well. The current trend of famous figures stepping down after being accused of sexual assault is primarily a result of them HAVING DONE THOSE THINGS and feeling shame\/guilt\/remorse about it. (And\/or a desire to avoid an investigation that could turn up worse crimes I suppose.) \"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. It's just a request\/demand that women's allegations be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. And by taking those allegations seriously, hopefully more women will feel comfortable reporting events to appropriate authorities when they happen, rather than waiting decades, or never reporting them at all. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e7l2o7o","c_root_id_B":"e7l2c8a","created_at_utc_A":1539278135,"created_at_utc_B":1539277867,"score_A":28,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"So if a woman says a man is a rapist, you can assume that man is a rapist while also assuming he is innocent of all charges until they are proven in a court of law? ​","human_ref_B":">\"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. It's just a request\/demand that women's allegations be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. Do you have specific examples in mind where the allegation was not taken seriously, and was instead dismissed out of hand?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":268.0,"score_ratio":3.1111111111} {"post_id":"9nbpco","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The concept behind \"Believe all women\" is the same concept we apply to all other crimes In a normal criminal case, an allegation is made, authorities TAKE THAT ALLEGATION SERIOUSLY, then conduct an investigation, and if evidence is found, arrest the suspect(s), hold a trial, and in the event of a guilty verdict or plea, apply sentencing. Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime. There's still an entire legal framework through which people are investigated, convicted, and sentenced. And the vast majority of citizens seem to believe that system works well. The current trend of famous figures stepping down after being accused of sexual assault is primarily a result of them HAVING DONE THOSE THINGS and feeling shame\/guilt\/remorse about it. (And\/or a desire to avoid an investigation that could turn up worse crimes I suppose.) \"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. It's just a request\/demand that women's allegations be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. And by taking those allegations seriously, hopefully more women will feel comfortable reporting events to appropriate authorities when they happen, rather than waiting decades, or never reporting them at all. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e7l1b3o","c_root_id_B":"e7l7wwt","created_at_utc_A":1539277025,"created_at_utc_B":1539282419,"score_A":16,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":">Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime. Except they are. If a guy is accused of rape more than likely his name will be released and anytime you google his name that accusation will pop up. Even if he's innocent.","human_ref_B":">Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime Yes, it is. Kobe Bryant is still commonly referred to as a \"rapist\" despite it being a ridiculously obvious shakedown for money. >The current trend of famous figures stepping down after being accused of sexual assault is primarily a result of them HAVING DONE THOSE THINGS and feeling shame\/guilt\/remorse about it. In *SOME* cases, but not all. Sometimes it's just easier to walk away than deal with the negative attention. What Harvey Weinstein did (minus the accusations from Asia Argento, who is not a reliable or trustworthy source) was despicable, but not illegal. He was forced out due to negative attention, not because he felt bad about committing a crime. >\"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. The Kavanaugh fracas would prove that \"should be\" and \"are\" don't line up in reality. \"Believe all women\" should only apply when she claims she was raped\/assaulted. It should never apply when she is specifically accusing a specific individual. Then it is \"Show me the evidence\".","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5394.0,"score_ratio":1.3125} {"post_id":"9nbpco","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"CMV: The concept behind \"Believe all women\" is the same concept we apply to all other crimes In a normal criminal case, an allegation is made, authorities TAKE THAT ALLEGATION SERIOUSLY, then conduct an investigation, and if evidence is found, arrest the suspect(s), hold a trial, and in the event of a guilty verdict or plea, apply sentencing. Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime. There's still an entire legal framework through which people are investigated, convicted, and sentenced. And the vast majority of citizens seem to believe that system works well. The current trend of famous figures stepping down after being accused of sexual assault is primarily a result of them HAVING DONE THOSE THINGS and feeling shame\/guilt\/remorse about it. (And\/or a desire to avoid an investigation that could turn up worse crimes I suppose.) \"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. It's just a request\/demand that women's allegations be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. And by taking those allegations seriously, hopefully more women will feel comfortable reporting events to appropriate authorities when they happen, rather than waiting decades, or never reporting them at all. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*","c_root_id_A":"e7l7wwt","c_root_id_B":"e7l2c8a","created_at_utc_A":1539282419,"created_at_utc_B":1539277867,"score_A":21,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":">Being accused of sexual assault isn't any more damaging or destructive to a person's life than any other crime Yes, it is. Kobe Bryant is still commonly referred to as a \"rapist\" despite it being a ridiculously obvious shakedown for money. >The current trend of famous figures stepping down after being accused of sexual assault is primarily a result of them HAVING DONE THOSE THINGS and feeling shame\/guilt\/remorse about it. In *SOME* cases, but not all. Sometimes it's just easier to walk away than deal with the negative attention. What Harvey Weinstein did (minus the accusations from Asia Argento, who is not a reliable or trustworthy source) was despicable, but not illegal. He was forced out due to negative attention, not because he felt bad about committing a crime. >\"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. The Kavanaugh fracas would prove that \"should be\" and \"are\" don't line up in reality. \"Believe all women\" should only apply when she claims she was raped\/assaulted. It should never apply when she is specifically accusing a specific individual. Then it is \"Show me the evidence\".","human_ref_B":">\"Believe all women\" doesn't mean that men who are accused should be imprisoned without trial, or that they deserve to be excoriated without cause. It's just a request\/demand that women's allegations be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. Do you have specific examples in mind where the allegation was not taken seriously, and was instead dismissed out of hand?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4552.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"7jx7t4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: #believewomen and \"innocent until proven guilty\" are mutually exclusive And it is about to blow up in our faces. I personally support the movement towards breaking silence, calling out sexual harassment, and more equality among the genders. But the problem is that allegations and claims are being treated as facts. And there is a large portion of this country who don't believe those allegations. So as soon as it is proven that 1 of those allegations was an opportunistic attention grab, it will undo so much of the progress we have made. It will cast doubt onto all of the genuine claims being made and give sexual predators more power because of that doubt. I don't have a solution but I am fearful this movement is going to implode on itself.","c_root_id_A":"dr9vkoi","c_root_id_B":"dr9xz2e","created_at_utc_A":1513310247,"created_at_utc_B":1513313542,"score_A":27,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Not at all. Innocent until proven guilty is only the standard for courts of law. We as individual citizens are free to have our own standards for deciding if we believe that a person is guilty or not. Innocent until proven guilty was only ever intended to be the standard for courts of law. You can believe sexual assault accusers are telling the truth without believing that they are legally guilty -- legal guilt requires a proof in a court of law, but you are free to have a different standard for what you personally believe is the case.","human_ref_B":"I look at it like this. We should take accusations seriously. We shouldn't deny them out of hand or dismiss the person making them. Our position ought to be, \"This is a serious claim and it should be thoroughly investigated.\" In this case, \"believing the accuser\" doesn't necessarily mean we're condemning the accused of guilt, but rather taking the accuser seriously enough to look into their claims and see if they have merit instead of writing them off or just calling them a liar. At the same time, we ought to not rush to judgment of the accused until evidence has proven their guilt. We shouldn't condemn someone just because they've been accused, for *anyone* - even we ourselves - could be accused at any time for something. And I don't think that's contradictory. Give the accuser *and* the accused the benefit of the doubt until it's over.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3295.0,"score_ratio":1.037037037} {"post_id":"7jx7t4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: #believewomen and \"innocent until proven guilty\" are mutually exclusive And it is about to blow up in our faces. I personally support the movement towards breaking silence, calling out sexual harassment, and more equality among the genders. But the problem is that allegations and claims are being treated as facts. And there is a large portion of this country who don't believe those allegations. So as soon as it is proven that 1 of those allegations was an opportunistic attention grab, it will undo so much of the progress we have made. It will cast doubt onto all of the genuine claims being made and give sexual predators more power because of that doubt. I don't have a solution but I am fearful this movement is going to implode on itself.","c_root_id_A":"dr9xz2e","c_root_id_B":"dr9vx3a","created_at_utc_A":1513313542,"created_at_utc_B":1513310708,"score_A":28,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I look at it like this. We should take accusations seriously. We shouldn't deny them out of hand or dismiss the person making them. Our position ought to be, \"This is a serious claim and it should be thoroughly investigated.\" In this case, \"believing the accuser\" doesn't necessarily mean we're condemning the accused of guilt, but rather taking the accuser seriously enough to look into their claims and see if they have merit instead of writing them off or just calling them a liar. At the same time, we ought to not rush to judgment of the accused until evidence has proven their guilt. We shouldn't condemn someone just because they've been accused, for *anyone* - even we ourselves - could be accused at any time for something. And I don't think that's contradictory. Give the accuser *and* the accused the benefit of the doubt until it's over.","human_ref_B":"Innocent till guilty is just what they use for a court. But often sexual assault and harassment is something that is done in the shadows. It wasn't talked about. Women weren't sharing their stories.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2834.0,"score_ratio":14.0} {"post_id":"7jx7t4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: #believewomen and \"innocent until proven guilty\" are mutually exclusive And it is about to blow up in our faces. I personally support the movement towards breaking silence, calling out sexual harassment, and more equality among the genders. But the problem is that allegations and claims are being treated as facts. And there is a large portion of this country who don't believe those allegations. So as soon as it is proven that 1 of those allegations was an opportunistic attention grab, it will undo so much of the progress we have made. It will cast doubt onto all of the genuine claims being made and give sexual predators more power because of that doubt. I don't have a solution but I am fearful this movement is going to implode on itself.","c_root_id_A":"dr9xz2e","c_root_id_B":"dr9wgb5","created_at_utc_A":1513313542,"created_at_utc_B":1513311421,"score_A":28,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I look at it like this. We should take accusations seriously. We shouldn't deny them out of hand or dismiss the person making them. Our position ought to be, \"This is a serious claim and it should be thoroughly investigated.\" In this case, \"believing the accuser\" doesn't necessarily mean we're condemning the accused of guilt, but rather taking the accuser seriously enough to look into their claims and see if they have merit instead of writing them off or just calling them a liar. At the same time, we ought to not rush to judgment of the accused until evidence has proven their guilt. We shouldn't condemn someone just because they've been accused, for *anyone* - even we ourselves - could be accused at any time for something. And I don't think that's contradictory. Give the accuser *and* the accused the benefit of the doubt until it's over.","human_ref_B":"Let me ask you this, what does it mean to be proven guilty? While in a criminal court, the standard of being proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is not universal, not even in our court system. In equity cases, the standard of proof is generally clear and convincing evidence, which is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. In family and civil courts, the level of proof needed to determine guilt is even lower with a preponderance of evidence standard, meaning that after reviewing the evidence it is more likely that the accused committed the act. The preponderance of evidence standard has been common in dealing with workplace sexual misconduct for quite a while now and is the standard college campuses use when dealing with sexual misconduct. The #metoo movement is only changing a few things. 1) It's finally applying this existing standard to powerful people. 2) More women are speaking out. 3) Society is finally responding to these complaints.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2121.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667} {"post_id":"7jx7t4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: #believewomen and \"innocent until proven guilty\" are mutually exclusive And it is about to blow up in our faces. I personally support the movement towards breaking silence, calling out sexual harassment, and more equality among the genders. But the problem is that allegations and claims are being treated as facts. And there is a large portion of this country who don't believe those allegations. So as soon as it is proven that 1 of those allegations was an opportunistic attention grab, it will undo so much of the progress we have made. It will cast doubt onto all of the genuine claims being made and give sexual predators more power because of that doubt. I don't have a solution but I am fearful this movement is going to implode on itself.","c_root_id_A":"dr9xz2e","c_root_id_B":"dr9wv2a","created_at_utc_A":1513313542,"created_at_utc_B":1513311981,"score_A":28,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I look at it like this. We should take accusations seriously. We shouldn't deny them out of hand or dismiss the person making them. Our position ought to be, \"This is a serious claim and it should be thoroughly investigated.\" In this case, \"believing the accuser\" doesn't necessarily mean we're condemning the accused of guilt, but rather taking the accuser seriously enough to look into their claims and see if they have merit instead of writing them off or just calling them a liar. At the same time, we ought to not rush to judgment of the accused until evidence has proven their guilt. We shouldn't condemn someone just because they've been accused, for *anyone* - even we ourselves - could be accused at any time for something. And I don't think that's contradictory. Give the accuser *and* the accused the benefit of the doubt until it's over.","human_ref_B":"The problem is that you can have both but you shouldn't. They both can be true if you change the standards of truth for each one. The argument is that #believewomen is only for individual opinions on the situation, not legal standings. And that it is up the person to believe what they choose to believe. Innocent until proven guilty is only for legal issues. The only time both can be appropriate is when you are referring to your personal opinion on a subject and not implying a legal definition of guilt.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1561.0,"score_ratio":14.0} {"post_id":"7jx7t4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: #believewomen and \"innocent until proven guilty\" are mutually exclusive And it is about to blow up in our faces. I personally support the movement towards breaking silence, calling out sexual harassment, and more equality among the genders. But the problem is that allegations and claims are being treated as facts. And there is a large portion of this country who don't believe those allegations. So as soon as it is proven that 1 of those allegations was an opportunistic attention grab, it will undo so much of the progress we have made. It will cast doubt onto all of the genuine claims being made and give sexual predators more power because of that doubt. I don't have a solution but I am fearful this movement is going to implode on itself.","c_root_id_A":"dr9vx3a","c_root_id_B":"dr9wgb5","created_at_utc_A":1513310708,"created_at_utc_B":1513311421,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Innocent till guilty is just what they use for a court. But often sexual assault and harassment is something that is done in the shadows. It wasn't talked about. Women weren't sharing their stories.","human_ref_B":"Let me ask you this, what does it mean to be proven guilty? While in a criminal court, the standard of being proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is not universal, not even in our court system. In equity cases, the standard of proof is generally clear and convincing evidence, which is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. In family and civil courts, the level of proof needed to determine guilt is even lower with a preponderance of evidence standard, meaning that after reviewing the evidence it is more likely that the accused committed the act. The preponderance of evidence standard has been common in dealing with workplace sexual misconduct for quite a while now and is the standard college campuses use when dealing with sexual misconduct. The #metoo movement is only changing a few things. 1) It's finally applying this existing standard to powerful people. 2) More women are speaking out. 3) Society is finally responding to these complaints.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":713.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"7jx7t4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: #believewomen and \"innocent until proven guilty\" are mutually exclusive And it is about to blow up in our faces. I personally support the movement towards breaking silence, calling out sexual harassment, and more equality among the genders. But the problem is that allegations and claims are being treated as facts. And there is a large portion of this country who don't believe those allegations. So as soon as it is proven that 1 of those allegations was an opportunistic attention grab, it will undo so much of the progress we have made. It will cast doubt onto all of the genuine claims being made and give sexual predators more power because of that doubt. I don't have a solution but I am fearful this movement is going to implode on itself.","c_root_id_A":"drat973","c_root_id_B":"dr9vx3a","created_at_utc_A":1513362489,"created_at_utc_B":1513310708,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"\"Believe\" is a tricky word here. While there are plenty of SJWs who would say that you should *absolutely believe no matter the evidence*, the general public simply means to treat your fellow person with respect. Don't be an assbag and *immediately* say they're lying. If the evidence comes up that they lied, then they lied, and *they're* the piece of shit. But until evidence comes forward, maybe just show them a little compassion.","human_ref_B":"Innocent till guilty is just what they use for a court. But often sexual assault and harassment is something that is done in the shadows. It wasn't talked about. Women weren't sharing their stories.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":51781.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"7jx7t4","domain":"changemyview_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"CMV: #believewomen and \"innocent until proven guilty\" are mutually exclusive And it is about to blow up in our faces. I personally support the movement towards breaking silence, calling out sexual harassment, and more equality among the genders. But the problem is that allegations and claims are being treated as facts. And there is a large portion of this country who don't believe those allegations. So as soon as it is proven that 1 of those allegations was an opportunistic attention grab, it will undo so much of the progress we have made. It will cast doubt onto all of the genuine claims being made and give sexual predators more power because of that doubt. I don't have a solution but I am fearful this movement is going to implode on itself.","c_root_id_A":"dr9wv2a","c_root_id_B":"drat973","created_at_utc_A":1513311981,"created_at_utc_B":1513362489,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The problem is that you can have both but you shouldn't. They both can be true if you change the standards of truth for each one. The argument is that #believewomen is only for individual opinions on the situation, not legal standings. And that it is up the person to believe what they choose to believe. Innocent until proven guilty is only for legal issues. The only time both can be appropriate is when you are referring to your personal opinion on a subject and not implying a legal definition of guilt.","human_ref_B":"\"Believe\" is a tricky word here. While there are plenty of SJWs who would say that you should *absolutely believe no matter the evidence*, the general public simply means to treat your fellow person with respect. Don't be an assbag and *immediately* say they're lying. If the evidence comes up that they lied, then they lied, and *they're* the piece of shit. But until evidence comes forward, maybe just show them a little compassion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":50508.0,"score_ratio":1.5}