diff --git "a/manual_evaluation_arguments.csv" "b/manual_evaluation_arguments.csv"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/manual_evaluation_arguments.csv"
@@ -0,0 +1,301 @@
+argument,id
+"I tip 20% as it is the expected norm and I have more than enough empathy for folks getting paid less than minimum wage to meet this expectation. However I'm arguing that there is no compelling reason for this to be the norm in the first place, not that it is reasonable to buck the norm with no alternatives in place. Already said this elsewhere in the thread, but consider it in a vacuum if you will -- if we were inventing a service industry from scratch right now, what would be a compelling argument for having certain employee's wages met almost entirely by tips rather than by normal wages.",22cfc2cb-6774-420f-a858-34feb30850e0
+"> > Imagine Bob and Frank each have a million dollars. Bob has 10 kids. Frank starts a company with 10 employees. If Bob wants to just give each kid 100k for nothing, it seems like you would want to say ""It's Bob's money, he can do what he wants with it"". But in Frank's case, each employee gets taxed on their income. In Frank's case, that is a service being provided in exchange for a good, while in Bobs case no service is being exchanged > When workers gain wealth They are not taxed until they sell it.",97cfda12-fe33-4956-9d13-4109f6939a4a
+"That's a good point. I think I might have proposed the wrong concern wrong in the question. A mandatory buyback would theoretically take guns away from all the citizens. But that would mean that the only people with guns would be the government: law enforcement and the military. In the US, as far as I can tell, law enforcement and the military mainly protect the interests of the rich and powerful. So, while the rich don't own the guns, they own the government, which owns the guns. Edit: just to wrap things up, my main point still stands, that a buyback would give power to the rich.",faac8249-8d91-427c-85d8-3e86641de962
+"I see a serious problem with your points. You are using botched execution rate as your driving argument, but you seem to be incorrectly attributing the term botched execution to one that causes unnecessary pain or suffering. This is not a necessary condition. A botched execution is simply one that doesn’t go to plan. Death by hanging and/or firing squad are most likely going to have a lower botched execution rate because the protocol for these executions involve exactly what it looks like. Getting shot and getting hanged. Victims of either of these methods who die slowly strangling or slowly bleeding out (as a huge proportion do) aren’t a surprise - they’re almost expected. Therefore will not be labelled botched. A botched lethal injection is likely to be much less painful.",d2a84b1e-e078-4174-b3b0-11ec2117c581
+">don't they euthanize patients by letting them go to sleep peacefully and never wake up again? Nope. They inject you with a chemical that slowly dissolves your veins over the course of 20 minutes or more. It's basically like being burned alive from the inside, but you're paralyzed first so nobody can hear you scream. There's actually some question as to whether it's this potassium chloride which kills you first, or whether it's the suffocation from being paralyzed for so long and unable to breathe. You're supposed to be given an anesthetic so you don't feel anything, but in reality you're just given a mild sedative that doesn't actually knock you out. Worse, it's administered by police officers, not medical professionals, because the state can't seem to get trained medical professionals to carry out executions.",c4c22d21-044e-4651-aefd-480e6ec95ce0
+"I see what you're saying and I agree with you for the most part. In the case where the dose of sedative is adequate to render the prisoner unconscious, and the following doses of anesthetic and potassium chloride are administered appropriately, all is good. The problem I have is that it appears around 7% of the time this doesn't happen and I believe that a 7% rate of botched execution is unreasonably high. Although, that does mean things go according to plan 93% of the time. As for hanging, it takes around 4-11 minutes to die but only a dew seconds to become unresponsive and presumably pain free. Although, there does appear to be a valid counterpoint that the time until unresponsive can vary with a variety of other factors.",e98a5bb5-7a32-4be5-833f-9e05047fad66
+"One thing that can’t really be taken at face value is The “US and Israel are allies” claim. We really can’t afford to be, this was a lesson learned back in the first gulf war when Israel tried to join the coalition after Sadam launched missiles at Israel . The US refused, not because we didn’t want them, but because Israel being on our side would of done more harm than good. Most of the Middle East refuses to have anything to do with “allies” of Israel and it would of been a shit show trying to operate in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait. etc. while at the same time having Israel being involved. Which is why Israel doesn’t offer alliance, aid, or condolences or anything that could be perceived as involvement that could jeopardize the west’s involvement in the Middle East. Because they understand that if they did the US would have a lot harder time operating in pretty much any middle eastern country.",b2928fe3-3664-4473-9c81-e466db1f128c
+">(Mainly due to the US continued reliance on foreign oil.) The United States doesn't particularly rely on foreign oil - and definitely not from the Middle East. The United States is the world's third largest producer of oil, and in 2019 was a net exporter of oil products - including both crude oil and refined petroleum products - meaning we exported more than we imported. A supermajority of American oil consumption is domestic (between 65% and 85% depending on how you measure it), and the remainder chiefly comes from Canada (43%). Add in Mexico (7%) and Venezuela (6%) and you are well over 50% and three and a half times what we get from all countries on the Persian Gulf combined (16% total - mostly from Saudi Arabia and Iraq).",40a26367-dd26-4ceb-b3c9-2c717eda1418
+"In what way could it be worse? I'm gonna sound like an asshole, but I could not care less for the middle east, at least not right now. We need to patch ourselves up. Whatever your opinion is on Trump, he has helped accelerate a divide in our country and we need solidarity now more than ever. We REALLY cannot afford to care so much for another country like we do Israel. Let's get more vets off the street. Let's fix our roads. Let's get more homes filled. Let's get ourselves fixed up as a country before we go and play Superman for another country.",748be672-10b9-4864-a5f2-14acc3fa0d59
+">I’ve been a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist for most of my life, and I still firmly believe that the government is evil and people have the right to do what they want with their own lives and property I really don't see how you can hate capitalism but like property rights. Property rights are the foundation of capitalism. And socialism/ancom infringes on property rights, by requiring that wealthy people forefit their property. Multi-millionaires make money because they have property that other people use to make more money and they ""rent"" it out. Whether that's a stockholder renting out a piece of a company to a worker, or a business owner allowing somebody to work on their property, or a car lender lending to an contractor, its all in return for a profit.",eb2bb37a-3084-45d3-890b-507ddc57efd2
+">I work because I am doing something I love, with people I enjoy, with hours I get at least some control over. Not OP, but I don't believe this is a realistic perspective on work. The economy right now is geared towards providing for a need. For example, I need to eat. The farmer that grows the food doesn't really care if his employees picking the produce love picking produce, and he shouldn't. At the end of the day, it's irrelevant to the real need for resources. Fact is, if a job was entirely fun to do, no one would pay you to do it. If you love doing it, more power to you, but it's 100% an unrealistic expectation from the labor market. No one wants to do garbage disposal, but we still need our garbage disposed of.",97b93ab7-ae95-445e-9d41-bb329b96040e
+"> The argument has been made that if people are not represented in an institution (education, politics, employment.) in the same proportions as they exist in the population, then this is evidence that injustice is the cause. I feel like you're mixing up evidence with proof. In a criminal trial, both the prosecution and the defence each present evidence that supports conflicting arguments. It's common that there is evidence against a position, but that position turns out to be true. It's important to acknowledge that this is in no way a contradiction. This is just what the word evidence means. So back to your point, of course these disparities are evidence of racism. And sure, same goes for the Jewish Nobel prize rates. But these bits of data are evidence, not proof. They're data points that say ""hey, something interesting is going on over here"". But you're work isn't done here. If you want to know what's going on, ask more questions. Are there other explanations? Are there other ways to test this theory? When you dig deeper, you might figure out why Jews are overrepresented in many fields, and it may or may not be directly related to racism. Similarly, dig deeper into race / gender issues. Maybe you find alternative explanation, or maybe you find more evidence of racism. Point is, all of these disparities are evidence, but that doesn't mean that you'll come to the same conclusion when you examine each case in more depth.",0467265a-fc59-48f1-b802-8ad8b0b5b797
+"We haven’t automated away every shitty job though, and it’s generally a good idea to have your entire ideology hinge on tech that doesn’t exist yet. And you’re only one person, lots of people out there would just not work at all if it didn’t affect them financially. Plus, even if some people volunteered to do some jobs, they would probably not work enough hours to produce enough goods and services for the hypothetical AnCom society to stay afloat. Again, saying “we don’t need a financial incentive to work because I like doing my job” is as flimsy of an argument as “we don’t need a social safety net because I donate to charity.”",acba902c-e739-4d78-bfeb-f9e65d712520
+">I question how, firstly, how it would reduce homelessness. These people would be ditching other welfare and would immediately receiving $1000. Many of these people would not know how to effectively use that money, and with the costs rising with demand, they wouldn't really be able to turn there life around. I certainly don't think most would be able to get a steady job just on that money alone. This assumes everybody who is homeless, is homeless because they're stupider than everyone else. (You are an asshole do thinking this.) People can be homeless for a number of reasons which extend beyond their intellectual ability to gain further income and spend it appropriatly. That's like some millionare trying to tell a middle class person they are dumb and don't know how to spend their money, otherwise they would also be a millionare.",4c38b138-b77b-4d83-b26e-b11e4837949b
+"When I'm in the hospital I want doctors who do their job well so I agree competition among health care workers is important. However, I disagree that competition is important with regards to how we finance healthcare. How healthcare is financed determines how healthcare is run and what its priorities are. We should have a national health service where the government offers doctors merit based pay based on patient outcomes. No money wasted kn the extra overhead that comes from competing insurance agencies. Instead we would focus money on incentivizing better performance out of doctors and other health care workers. Same with pharmaceutical companies. That should be government run too and scientists who do better should be paid more both for the effects of proven treatments and research that appears to be heady to proven treatments. This could lead to more cures since private investors are less likely to fund cures since then the customer no longer needs more service. The government could give scientists researching cures especially for cancers and for Alzheimer's greater pay than they get now. There could even still be pharmaceutical companies to better organize this work, acting within the government-run organization and its administration and employees (scientists and others) getting reimbursed by the government according to health care outcomes. Nobody running wants to go this far but it makes rational sense. The market would optimize outcomes if everyone had perfect information and always made rational decisions. But people don't. In some areas the market is still more efficient but in health care it incentives actors to act in ways that are to the detriment to health both in absolute terms and relative to what planners could accomplish.",73865d0a-9e27-4056-aabd-966871c2263d
+"I guess that was poorly thought out, I mean like that wouldn't everyone receiving $1000 cause prices to rise, and while, for people who are receiving wages, would have this fall into an affordable range, people that are actually in need of these things would be basically getting just as much as they were before, which isn't much. I could see it helping people that may have disability related expenses, but I don't see how it's more effective than just public health care. ​ >You've made the assumption that homeless people are on welfare. Typically not the case. I meant that in the sense of these people would be ditching any welfare they may be on and receiving an amount of money that they likely wouldn't know how to spend in a way to actually get them a steady job, unless there is an expansion of social programs in that regard.",e8c2a3c7-fc8a-4651-8d57-7ed0c3c97fc4
+"I agree that approval voting is easier to understand, but it has the downside of figuring out how to vote strategically. In first past the post, it's a known drawback that you are often better off voting for your favorite candidate that has a shot vs just your straight up favorite candidate. You have to vote strategically. One of advantages of ranked-choice is you don't have to vote strategically. You can just honestly answer your favorite candidates from best to worst and have absolutely no incentive to do anything else. But in approval voting, there is a really complex question that, as a voter, I would find frustrating, which is where do you draw your line? Suppose there are 10 candidates and I know which ones I prefer to which other ones. but where do I draw my line? Do I vote for my top 3 or my top 5 or my top 9? To me, this would be even more frustrating than the strategic voting required by first past the post.",901de94d-6509-46a2-9eba-554ea351fd19
+">What's hard to understand about ranking your preferences? The way they're counted. Is it intuitive that your second choice isn't even counted at all if someone wins the first choice? >In ranked choice, if one candidate is a majority of voters' first choice, that person will always win, just like in first-past-the-post. Yes, so that raises the question of whether I should vote for my real first choice first, or vote strategically first in case the election doesn't get to the runoff stage. >Approval voting creates a situation where, by voting for my second choice, I could make my first choice lose. How?",6673904f-e1c4-40ff-9452-6f067fb3c230
+">People do question race as a social construct. That's one of the strongest critiques against white supremacy since 'white' has meant different things to different people at different times. Right but that is different from applying the same criticism of saying gender is applied to me and too much emphasis is put on gender. Nobody who is saying whiteness is a social construct is also expressing that race doesn't matter. That application does not exist. ​ For example, to go back to my co-worker, it would never occur to her that she would allow her child to tell her that the child is Chinese.",366ebe04-9582-417b-88ac-8d36b1c2b806
+">What's hard to understand about ranking your preferences? Honestly, it's not the ranking that's hard to understand but how you sort out the winner. Not that it's hard hard, but it's certainly more complex than just ""plurality of votes wins"" and a lot of people don't trust that complexity. I'm not saying they're justified, but it's undeniably more complex and for some people it will reduce their faith in the system. All that said, I'm 100% in favour of ranked preference over FPTP. I believe the increased ability to vote freely will do wonders for the political landscape.",8fb72ffa-dc44-4239-b001-640e1dc5ce30
+"Also this reminds me of the novel 1984 because it’s similar in that there is a ‘thought crime,’ which is the next logical step if you go down that path. Everyone is paranoid because if you are accused of thinking about doing a crime you can be charged and everyone is paranoid someone will report them for it and it’s a dystopian nightmare. If attempting something is as bad as doing it than thinking it is as bad as attempting it. There is a distinction between these things. In that novel big brother eliminates words in order to brainwash people as well. For example they would remove the word ‘attempt’ as a method of control to keep the population from ever trying anything against them. There is just ‘do’ and so even if someone didn’t ‘do’ it in reality because there is no word for attempt they can be executed. It’s dangerous to mislabel things.",6478bf37-ab17-4530-aa99-3b0130da79c5
+">Also this reminds me of the novel 1984 because it’s similar in that there is a ‘thought crime,’ which is the next logical step if you go down that path. Everyone is paranoid because if you are accused of thinking about doing a crime you can be charged and everyone is paranoid someone will report them for it and it’s a dystopian nightmare. If attempting something is as bad as doing it than thinking it is as bad as attempting it. I do not think this has the be the next logical step. I would make the point that there is a difference between if I think about it but I myself decide against it and I attempt something and someone/something else prevents me from succeeding.",f40b3a95-4e38-44e3-a76f-52a76bf70c1d
+">To nitpick, this is wrong. If I attempt to assault someone because they insult me to my face, that isn't premeditated. Purpose and intent often arise right before the crime happens. ~~That's fair! I understand how particular step of logic is wrong.~~ As a quick edit, a different comment prompted me to do some looking, and it appears that in the American criminal justice system, my original belief that attempt automatically applies intent is correct. Only crimes with ""specific intent"" can be ""attempted."" And while I certainly understand your example and your point, I'm still left wondering why we should focus on the actual harm done to society when punishing criminals, rather than their likelihood to cause further harms to society. What's done is done and (except in cases of monetary compensation, which isn't what I'm concerned with here) cannot be undone.",6a023801-011d-42ca-ae81-69e8854a272a
+"Here's a suggestion, make the law that if your gun is used by anyone to cause harm you can be charged with reckless endangerment causing death, do jail time, and be financially responsible for damages. And yes I mean if a kid takes his dad's gun from the closet to school and shots someone the dad goes to jail too because he didn't ensure it was secure and the victim or their family can sue. This creates a market for gun insurance. Then make it so you can't sell a gun without proof of insurance for it. The insurance companies will price in the real costs and risks!!! It's a market driven solution that doesn't touch rights, And will save lives.",14f5ac86-296b-492d-bddf-c6d12a62db82
+"An AR15 shoots a .223 caliber bullet. Much smaller than a standard 9mm or .45 caliber handgun round. They typically have much less “firepower” than a handgun. Nobody hunts deer with an AR15 because the bullet is literally too small to kill it unless you hit in the heart or lung. There are variants that fire larger bullets, but this proves that “deadliness” is much more dependent on the ammo than the type of gun. The only factors that really depend on the gun are reliability, accuracy, and ease of use. Obviously there are aspects of modern guns like AR15’s that make them preferable in certain situations, but definitely not because they can “provide more firepower.” To me, it’s because they’re good all-purpose guns; a large-caliber hunting rifle would be awful for home/personal defense and a 9mm handgun would be useless for hunting while great to carry or for bumps in the night. An AR can do both reasonably well but wouldn’t be anybody’s first choice for either.",71c10da7-7fad-47cd-ad0a-4aefd1b5a321
+"They aren’t “specifically designed to kill lots of people” the AR-15 was designed to be reliable and lightweight. The 5.56 round it uses was designed to be lethal enough to incapacitate but to be light enough that soldiers could carry a lot of ammunition. If you just want to kill as many people as possible a homemade bomb or an ar-10 chambered in .308 would be a better option. That’s one reason why the ar-15 isn’t super popular for large game, there’s a good chance the animal will be wounded and not killed. The fact that is has been used for some deadly mass shootings doesn’t automatically mean it should be banned. I don’t hear you talking about banning shotguns which kill more people than rifles every year. I didn’t say they would be easy to get I said there are already too many for them to ever be completely eradicated.",df0c4f4d-bcd1-4811-937c-c5ee426b95f1
+"I used to be of a similar opinion, but what changed my mind was vehicle sale sites; which list heavily discounted dealer sales or hire purchase offers. (I'm in the UK) The options listed at any one time is pot luck; but I have seen as much as 45% discounts being offered - meaning that theoretically, you could buy a brand new car, have a 3 year warranty / including free servicing, labour and parts, not have to worry about an MOT (and also road tax in many cases)- and then sell it after 2 to 3 years for the same amount you originally paid. So your ongoing costs are significantly reduced and any depreciation is negated by the upfront discount. A lot of dealers offer these sort of deals but dont like to advertise heavy discounts well for obvious reasons.",d6a0ed4f-29a0-4ac8-9e04-6e7267c68703
+"It absolutely depends on the car, too. I found that with, for example, a Subaru WRX, the price of a 2-3 year old used car was almost no lower than new. We're talking about maybe a few hundred dollars at most. On the other hand, recent BMWs become endless money pits after the 5 year/50,000 mile mark. They lose a ton of value after this point because BMW has begun to use plastic parts in the engines. They're cheap to make, but get destroyed by the temperature changes inherent to an engine. And they're NOT cheap to replace. The only sensible way to have one is to lease it. You lose less money that way, and if it breaks, it's someone else's problem.",9802a472-0cb6-469f-9fc2-76d93b20c096
+"This is interesting — I did some napkin math and going by average interest rates (if you finance the entire vehicle) the difference is still only about $165. However I do think that’s not the whole picture; suppose you have $22,800 on hand and you could either buy the new car or buy the used car and invest the rest. $8500 invested with a rate of return of say 10% for 9 years becomes $20,042, which is a gain of $1282 per year. I guess my main argument is that any car is a strictly depreciating asset and the opportunity cost isn’t something most people think about.",83dd93c4-909e-42b4-b9d9-7f6d2434ae90
+"If a lawyer has worked harder to win cases easier, they should be entitled to charge how much they want, accepting clients that can afford it. You can't buy better justice, only influence it through the wit, resources, and experience of a decent lawyer who has undoubtedly worked harder to get to his position than a third rate lawyer. The rich should be able to do whatever they want with their money, as long as it stays in the boundaries of the law. If it doesn't, then that's what the lawyer is for, to help them get the best possible outcome. However, a good lawyer can only go so far. I'm also not sure how your proposed system would work correctly. Maybe, there is only 2 lawyers in a jurisdiction, a really good one and a bad one. How would a worthy opponent be chosen for either? You surely can't expect the state, defendant, or plaintiff to get a lawyer from somewhere else shipped in? That's just dumb.",0fef097f-87be-4c33-8efe-fb6bbf1012bc
+"A fundamental problem is that public lawyers don't make anywhere close to the same money as private sector lawyers. This is somewhat to be expected, but a better criminal justice system would have much better compensated public lawyers. I know really really competent lawyers who worked for the Illinois State Attorney, and they were still making less than $60k into their late 20s. That's completely unsustainable. Even though they were ""we're public servants sacrificing for the public good"" types, they left the SA office after multiple years of no raises and immediately tripled their salaries in corporate law. These are the kind of people the government should absolutely compete for, and it isn't even close.",96c04392-1b94-4ced-a7bc-e6929384f06f
+"I see your point. What I think makes it different is that the law is expressly intended provide equality and impartiality. That's why rulings have to be the same as previous ones if the facts are the same. That's what makes it different from housing. I would say it's immoral that a society could have very luxurious housing and lots of fellow citizens living in squalor. But the housing system isn't expressly set up to be dispensed equally. It is, in the best case, designed to provide a minimum standard for all, with policies supporting the majority being well housed.",b0cedfea-2e61-4846-b1fa-5f7c286798ae
+"I guess I agree with you in principle. But I also think that is not how humans ""work"". We rely on evaluating persons not only their actions. That was/is of crucial importance to our survival because we need trust as a social species. If we see a person doing good deeds we will apply that good ""karma"" to the person and then we trust them. Because of that we have not evolved ANY real capability to separate the person from the act. We rather take the sum of the acts and kinda weight them against each other then apply the result to the person. So my bottom line would be you are right but also realize why this is not happening anytime soon. >It seems mad to say things like, ""This is an excellent song, shame we can't listen to it because of their criminal acts"" This is also a little bit different because you would support the person when you buy their music. I still believe you should be able to boycott a person if you disagree with something that they do that is not related to the product. >So when I hear people tout him as this exemplary person I get a little uncomfortable. I might inform them about his other acts but I just get told I'm a traitor, Hitler sympathiser or whatever else. Those people are stupid and you should look for better friends.",39b37da0-c8f3-42dd-9289-d99a7e0029ff
+"> With the exception of Churchill (and then only among Brits), I cannot really think of much whitewashing. People are almost always defined by their worst single deed. You are, who you are at your worst. I'd argue that Trump is a modern day example of this phenomenon also - someone very much not defined by his worst deeds but rather by his (purported) goals. It is said that you judge yourself and your friends by your intentions and everyone else by their actions - and the things Trump says are taken 'literally but not seriously' by his opponents and 'seriously but not literally' by his allies, and that seems to be much the same principle at work.",f1502cbe-f4a4-43dc-9049-81e33cbf5f96
+"It's rare you see a mention now of someone getting a statue without someone getting upset as universal praise across all demographics is incredibly rare. In the UK a statue was recently unveiled to celebrate the first female MP. Now her struggle as a woman to become a member of Parliament would have been very real and worth celebrating. However she was an anti-semite and Hitler supporter. So my point here would be to not build her a statue as it will rightly irk certain demographics. However we should be absolutely be able to celebrate her achievements in a different way. How, I don't know, but definitely not with a statue.",704ce027-7637-46eb-a8b4-96c7a4a48bba
+"I don't remember anything from my philosophy classes. I don't think it helped me in any way at the time, especially since a lot of it focused on Greek philosophy which I was already fairly familiar with from history classes (yeah, go figure). I personally think Geography and History classes are far better to teach how to 'think better' and analyze arguments, since my teachers always promoted discussions and essays among the class, but maybe I'm just considering my own experience. I don't think my philosophy teacher was great. I learnt far more by myself after I graduated High School.",2b98b02e-2cc7-4b36-ad47-5636be8d0a81
+"I completely agree with your point in the current education system, but the first half of your comment illustrates exactly what the problem is; How the current education system systematically drills information testing for accuracy rather than ensuring the growth in learning and inspiring intellectual curiosity. First budget should never be an issue, education is the backbone of society creating the ones that inherit the Earth, any and all expense should be met in priority. Class sizes should be small to ensure a dedicated experience for each student, and learning should be approached in a less formal way. Stories of culture and history are equally as mystifying as works of fiction and mythology. Math and science are the wonders of our world. When properly represented and cultivated education becomes less of something equatable to a job and more of a wonderful journey one willingly takes to seek improvement, health, and happiness.",3a7f6762-b7d5-4a4b-a22f-2010bedc574d
+"I agree with you to an extent. There are certainly interesting questions that can be brought up in a philosophic way in the great works of literature. I would say that this is acceptable at the very early level 1st -4th grade. But after that I think it's worth it in philosophy to really get into the weeds with some of the great thinkers of history. Obviously keeping things age appropriate. I remember reading the giver in 4th or 5th grade. I think if that book could be required reading, someone could easily rework some other philosophy into grade and agree appropriate bites.",b8c0d257-7c21-4b4c-8f7d-63a7bca26609
+"What do you really mean by more harm than good? I assume you mostly mean current day's anthropocentric climate change issues. Well there are two real problems with that, the first being that alternative systems to capitalism also produce emissions, factories in the USSR still emitted CO2, Chinese cars still emit CO2, Laotian cows still fart methane ect. ​ And there's the other issue that most proposed solutions to climate change rely on capitalist mechanisms through things like carbon taxation and investment in green technology. In a more egalitarian society there would be far less mechanism to incentivse people to reduce their own carbon emissions. If there was no money or at least money had no real worth then how could you reasonably incentivise people on an individual level to pollute less? ​ Furthermore as you accept yourself capitalism is pretty decent at the whole technological advancement thing and technological advances are themselves probably the best available solution to anthropogenic climate change. ​ As a last point you say that capitalism has lead to the congregation of wealth in a very small minority and while this is demonstrably true it's less true than under any system tried so far in human history (at least within settled, civilised societies) and those other systems include things like the USSR and the original socialist experiment in the Inca Empire and over time there has been a trend towards a higher degree of wealth equality under capitalism (ie today there's less inequality than 100 years ago and 100 years ago there was less inequality than 100 years previously)",d97e1844-97ba-4b4a-98b5-33733cad2866
+"I don't think it's fair to compare Capitalism and Feudalism in this sense. Many more things have changed since the Feudal period than economic structure. Even if we were still living in Feudal arrangements, scientific advances would still have allowed for the massive positive impact on quality of life. We don't really know what Feudalism would look like in a modern context. This is kinda like giving a coke to someone who is getting better from a cold and saying that the coke cured them. It's not that it's not true. It's that we don't have enough information to know if it's related.",e4997d66-41ff-4cbc-b40c-f1b7ef8b8dd0
+"I agree with you in the context that we compare it to the past, but if we compare the benefits it has given us in the past 100 years versus the effects that (hopefully we wont) but will probably have to endure in the following 100 years will definitely not outweigh the good it has brought. I will be more than happy to be proven and that the biggest tech companies will figure out some sort of magical instant solution for the likes of global warming, but as it stands, corporations continuing buying politicians in order to continue profiting while ruining the only planet we have. Even if the likes of SpaceX manage to create a colony on the moon/mars. The marginal gain of a few that will manage to escape will not outweigh the suffering it will cause on the many.",f3a4e4a2-29be-44e1-aa80-4a28bf143294
+"So first off, what do we mean by language? Written word is different from spoken word, and this is illustrated well by ""Chinese"". Chinese is a written language which is used for speakers of many varieties of chinese languages. Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, and many others are mutually unintelligible ""Chinese"" spoken languages which all fall under the same banner. If this were to happen, politically it would be terrible. The most likely candidates to win would probably be English/Spanish/Arabic/Chinese, and all of those languages have their own issues. Arabic is similar to Chinese in having a writing system shared by multiple very different spoken languages. In any case, if either of these four languages were to be selected as the official World Language, it would be seen by non-speakers as being a form of cultural imperialism, foreigners trying to force their language down our throats. If it were spanish, (many) Americans would reject it. If it were English, the entire post-colonial world would want to reject it, as well as China and likely Russia. Arabic would absolutely not be accepted in the current political atmosphere of Europe and the US. And if it were Chinese, it would be seen as China extending its sphere of influence through the world. Politically, this idea is not feasible. Even if it has good benefits in terms of intercommunication, the by-products are too politically disastrous to be in anyway workable in the world.",8fd9dbdc-f0b5-4145-ba0f-1537b55039fb
+">it would be seen by non-speakers as being a form of cultural imperialism, foreigners trying to force their language down our throats. Which is what both the UK and the US have done for decades, so how would be it any different with another language? I think arabic and chinese are out because they are just too difficult and don't work as well with computers as roman alphabet languages. English is a very irregular language and needlessly difficult, although not the worse, that would probably be french. ​ \> If it were spanish, (many) Americans would reject it. Some 40 million americans already speak spanish and many millions more are exposed to it all over California and Florida. ​ I think spanish is the most logical language, specially because pronunciation is 100% linked to writing. There are no surprises as in french where they somehow decided not to pronounce half the syllabes they write. ​ Spanish is also regular enough than more than 400 million people in two continents can understand each other. While at the same time two people from opposing sides of the UK can barely understand each other because of their dialects. ​ Disney did this when they dubbed their movies for both Spain and Latin America in a single version of the language and easy enough to be understood by kids.",50ed6bed-6820-42c1-ac4d-281b783362f1
+"Well, I would like to agree with you, but trust me a lot of countries aren't like that. German as an example, the country I live in. They are very exclusive with their language and hate communicating with people in other languages and sometimes ignore you if you approach them in another language. >We already do this without voting. Your point is kinda valid, but my point is to take it to the next level by implementing into schools and education systems as the official language for education. Most countries stick to their own language and teach in it. >You’re solving a problem that doesn’t exist. It's not really a problem and more of step forward as a humanity, it will make the world more connected than ever while not discriminating against others since it's done through the choice of people and what they think is the best language to be deemed as the international language.",bed97b69-fdf1-486f-9708-5f167996f71b
+"I will try to change your view about a form of collective punishment than you wrote about. Two examples: A teacher institutes a rule that if anyone fails to do their homework, no one gets recess. A coach institutes a rule that if anyone fails to show up on time for practice, the whole team is running 20 laps at the end of practice. These are decidedly forms of collective punishment. However, not only are these practices not unethical, they are actually ethical. They foster team building and a sense of collectivism. If done correctly, it can unite the classroom/team around a common goal. This is a positive ethic that we would want to foster.",015e8283-6652-4b33-9479-99bd54839567
+"""In it's magnificent equality, the law forbids rich and poor, alike, to sleep under bridges, steal bread, and beg in the streets."" -- Anatole France. Men and women (or boys and girls) have it different on account of gender. That means that rules can be unjust even if they're egalitarian. For a silly example, do you think it would be fair for a school to make everyone use urinals? Of course that really only invalidates the justification that's presented here. It doesn't provide any sensible guidance on how to determine whether a particular policy is unjustly sexist or not.",9061b514-52f3-424b-9112-c01852c31b11
+"I'd argue that even in the context of utilitarianism it's an unethical and immoral idea, because it creates an environment of ""fear of deviation"". Because for every one that deviates the whole collective is punished. Which leads to a totalitarian system that is self-oppressive. It's a mean that effectively helps to inflict the philosophy of one person on and entire collective against their will and by force. So the utility of that one person increases while it's detrimental for basically any other person in that group and maybe even to the person that thought to control the group once the collective holds them to the same standard. But granted utilitarianism is often times very hypocritical about what utility is and who's utility matters, so yeah one should criticize that at every occasion :)",f8308789-8e12-46b3-bd04-64d5620528fb
+"That's a good point. I do, and you're right that imprisonment does hurt innocent lives. I'm still on the fence about how equivalent these situations are. In imprisonment, you directly punish wrongdoers, and as an indirect consequence you hurt innocent peoples' lives. In collective punishment, you directly punish innocent people, by design, and as an indirect consequence you punish wrongdoers. For example, in embargoes, you might refuse to do business with a company based in a certain country, which directly hurts that company, its workers, and its consumers. Note that the company, its workers, and consumers, did nothing wrong except live in a certain country. Indirectly, that is supposed to put pressure on the government, but this is an indirect consequence of the suffering inflicted on innocent citizens.",5591cd2e-5f8c-4f1d-a5e4-7330b27af8b2
+">I’ve read the transcript and I believe the evidence is speculative based off of pre existing opinions of the president. Im not sure what you mean here. If you read the transcript you know the president told the leader of Ukrain that he wanted Ukrain to investigate the president's political rival's son. You agree that in a discussion regarding millions of taxpayer dollars of aid, the president requested this investigation, don't you? >I hear so much talk back and forth about what facts are and are not true during the hearing but never do these congressmen actually reference what specific facts do or do not prove a man guilty. The other article involves Trumps refusal to supply Comgress with the information that would clear Trump of any wrongdoing (or proven him guilty) Do you deny that happened?",32b2d717-5821-4f65-baf2-26c39924af9a
+"Not true , high crimes and misdemeanours has a meaning and is a requirement. The Supreme Court could very well become involved to clarify and decide “what” exactly - but it’s still a requirement. You could not impeach a president because he wore red on a Tuesday - no matter how many senators you get to vote for it. It’d be rules unconstitutional and invalid. To the OP- If you believe that the impeachment is baseless , shouldn’t that worry you more than your bottom line in business. It’s literally your country’s democracy at stake. I mean fair enough if you believe Trump is corrupt , but believing a president is about to be removed without cause should alarm you.",0cba2aa7-26f7-4270-b0d0-dadaf359bff6
+!delta Thank you! I legitimately came in search of facts that I didn’t really trust media sites to hand out in equal and this was just the thing I was looking for. You’ve presented an argument with sources and facts to back it up. Which is more than I could say of most congressmen arguing back and forth during the hearings. On a side note it’s a dam shame to come to CMV in search of having my view changed and yet still be downvoted because the opinion in which I am actively seeking to change is unpopular.,253026dd-4678-4606-a215-6990ccdba922
+"I lost the plot a little in reading your post. Ultimately there is never one true definition for a word. Words are just sounds we make to try to transfer ideas. The word socialism is commonly used in two ways 1 - A system in which private ownership of the mean of production is not allowed. You cannot found a business are hire employees without those employees gaining some ownership share. 2 - capitalism with higher taxes and/or government spending that redistributes wealth. Because these two things are very different, whenever you find yourself talking about socialism you should be clear about what specifically you mean. All states that have tried to implement socialism by the first definition, have failed. But plenty of states have implemented the second definition, including america.",86aef043-6e07-4e24-8c90-e18099c6ee26
+">Their labor would be better suited providing other things. How do you know that? I've been an escort for just a bit over a decade and I can say without question that I have met quite a few people who I believe are too stupid do be doing anything except what they're doing. And you know, that's FINE. Different people are suited to do different things, not everyone is going to fit into the box that society has built for them. I'm actually glad that these people have figured out a way to make more money than just grinding endlessly working a McJob, giving away the short time they have on this Earth to somebody else for next to nothing.",1b5f7523-b956-4690-b16d-7743ec01021c
+"Technically the states that tried socialism were mostly regions within civil wars and it actually worked most of the time for that period, before they were crushed by outside forces. Those longer lasting dictatorships were usually not so much socialist but state capitalist. So without ownership and participation by the workers, but with a monopolist industry. And your 2nd definition is called ""social market economy"" and with some contortions could transform into a self-exploiting socialism, but is usually just employed by capitalist states that fear a revolution by the working class and seek to appease the masses with no real intention to change anything in terms of who's boss and who's supposed to work for those bosses.",ffedc12b-4f9d-430c-b380-9586131fd001
+"My personal beliefs is that if he wins a second term, any of the things I outlined in the original post will be outweighed by the everlasting damage that Trump will inflict on our institutions and our reputation. I fear what an emboldened a Trump administration would do to consolidate power in a second term. As for the the damage his administration has already done, I’m not sure I share your pessimism. I believe Dems have a legit shot a regaining trifecta in 2020. I think the first priority of a trifecta should include passing a series of reforms to shore up our institutions and democracy. These would include eliminating the filibuster and granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico. I’m not completely sold on the idea of court reform, but I think it’s at least worth looking into if the ultimate goal is to make the process less partisan.",50a93851-aec0-41bd-bc1d-bffeaf5b6cf5
+"It may be a tactic, but that doesn't mean it is an illegitimate tactic. If the definitions are what the definitions are, shouldn't the right be able to lay claim to them? The fact that we have words that are 'distinct from marxism-leninism' tends to suggest that we need those words and should use them. Or we should insist that the definitions be updated, as the Wikipedia editors seem to be doing, so that we don't have to argue what 'Socialism' means anymore. I will give a delta ∆. for the actual terms list that you've provided which expanded my perspective a bit because I hand't realized that distinction was part of the idea behind them. I was focused on other aspects of the words.",195c10ee-a966-497d-95fa-5d90ac87aa0b
+"Doesn’t this establish a precedent? Right now the Dems have evidence of impeachable offenses committed by the president. If they chose to ignore these for political reasons, doesn’t signify that what he did was acceptable and no longer impeachment worthy? The same really applies to the senate when they have to take this up. If Trump can’t be removed from office for this whole Ukraine thing, then doesn’t the senate remove that option against future presidents. Doesn’t that allow President Sanders to call up whomever he wants and threaten withholding money unless they announced criminal investigations against his Republican opponent? In this context, I really don’t see there being much of a choice in the House or the Senate. It’s not only to both their advantages in the long term, but also, you know, their jobs.",adf68810-2f5a-4e57-a474-da73ba0de1d8
+"You make excellent points, and I'd like to propose another possible reason. As of now, Nancy Pelosi controls when (or if) the articles of impeachment are forwarded to the Senate. If I understand the rules correctly, when that event happens, the Senate is bound to immediately begin deliberating on a fixed timeline and no senator can leave the process even to campaign. I think Pelosi is clearly in favor of Joe Biden, and if either of the two upstart senators named Sanders or Warren get too close in the polls, she can limit their campaigns at her leisure by simply forwarding the articles. This effectively traps them in DC while Biden would be free to continue. Please feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood the rules, but Pelosi is no fool. And she wouldn't sit on the articles as she's doing now without a good reason.",36dcf0cc-d52d-4061-8907-7a45b448ec39
+"In 2018 53% of eligible voters actually cast ballots (up from 41% in the 2014 midterm), which was a record high. However, the Republicans were at a disadvantage in the election for a few reasons. The number of republicans not seeking re-election was at a high-point, with 34 choosing not to run, vs only 18 democrats. An incumbent running is the highest indicator of how an election will go (94% win re-election). The second disadvantage as that midterms are usually voted against the presidential party (presumably because we always hate the sitting president lol). Source here. Lastly, with so many candidates sitting very far left and those in the middle not appearing very popular in the primary. I think with a failed impeachment and the hounding of the GOP about how ridiculous it is, moderate voters will not be energized by the dems, and they are what's needed to win the election. And yes, the GOP has not won many popular votes, but that doesn't really matter because it's not how our election system works.",d748be8c-d1c5-4254-ba27-954a952ab7b4
+You’re confusing two different claims. The United States is not a fascist dictatorship. Donald Trump is not a fascist. Let’s say I’m a monarchist. I prefer rule by Kings and maybe I even do what I can to bring it about. Can you argue I’m not a monarchist because the United States isn’t a monarchy? No. If don’t think so. Donald Trump wants to be a fascist dictator. He personally has no respect for democratic institutions. He personally advocates for strict limitations on press that doesn’t agree with him and advocates the use of violence against individuals who speak out against him. He doesn’t respect the ideals of Liberal Democracy. But those institutions and norms still exist (although they are eroding) and the outcome is that he acts like an authoritarian democratic president. Just because the United States isn’t a fascist dictatorship does not mean that Donald trump isn’t a fascist.,5f611ca6-c307-4acc-8b0f-766797d4196e
+So white guys can say the n word because technically they aren’t calling them property they are just using a different definition the homie version.? If you use a word meant to describe the worst people to ever exist to describe a guy you don’t like when an actual nazi starts to come into power no one will believe you or be part of your discussion. They will see the other side as their enemy and rally behind someone they most likely don’t even believe in just because he is labeled the same. calling white males nazis instead of trying to explain how view points they might hold can be hard and vile for others. You are going to disenfranchise them in their community online and in person they will feel like the outgroup and will lash out. You are making rascist by calling people racist.,ccca2719-1a49-410a-9cf2-42f74d5817d9
+"Mhmmm I don't think criticising the press or one's critics makes them a fascist. You could argue his rhetoric is over the line, but I'd think its a greater sign of his populist approach/childish temperament rather than any real commitment towards cracking down on political dissent. >pushed policy that has brown people being locked in cages where they're being denied due process and basic medical aid Mhmmm lack of adequate facilities is one thing, but to imply that detention camps for illegal immigration is some sort of white supremacist concentration camp designed with the express purpose of subjugating/imprisoning/harming brown people seems like an overreach.",1afa2e9a-b7d2-4b85-ba98-888d3b22aa5b
+"You presume to know how someone will feel after having sex. No two people will react the same way, An individual may react differently given different circumstances. There are actual escorts, and legal brothers. Both surely have repeat customers, I doubt they all came to the conclusion that sex wasn’t what they thought it would be, and I’m sure more than a small amount of them knew what to expect going in. I’m not against women being able to work with dignity if they can actually come to the decision to do it, but I don’t feel that that would be a net benefit to society as illustrated in your OP.",2a4f22dc-caaf-41e3-a64f-7249bfe35a03
+"It could be a flip of the coin really. For the amount of thirsty guys you say on Reddit that want relationships, I'm almost certain that I can find an equal, if not greater, amount of them that just want sex or want a relationship for the purpose of having sex more easily available. And you are right about the majority of customers at the moment being married men or men without social skills. While I don't much to say about the prior, I can say something about the latter. Perhaps part of the lack of social skills that these men have is the social anxiety they get from talking to a woman and in that case, I believe that the intimacy they'll have from one or two sessions with an escort may greatly help in reducing that social anxiety. A similar case can be made for general social awkwardness. It very much depends on the man and I acknowledge that you are right. For some men, it very well may end up becoming a crutch for them and hindering their chances of finding a potential partner in the future. But I believe this won't happen as much. I actually didn't consider too hard the possibility that you've presented me. I'm new to this sub so I don't know if I'm supposed to award a delta here or not.",e165664a-8e52-4b34-a476-cab989acc822
+"> If the people ever decide to rise up, I suspect it will take the form of secession If a substantial region of the US tries to declare independence, they will almost certainly have the material support of the local national guard including their armory. Civilian contributions won't be necessary. If you believe that local armed forces are necessary as a deterrent to a tyrannical Federal government, then it would be make more sense to keep military weapons with the local national guard armory than randomly distributed to whoever. A few bozos with big guns deciding to fight a government isn't a revolution. It's a law enforcement matter.",34f5ab55-f65b-4d84-9bf2-b9a53d1d373f
+"Probably the same system that gives you a 200 dollar tax stamp to own a machine gun in America today. If you really want to go through the hassle, you can get those already. There are gun ranges in America that will allow you to shoot a rpg or a tank. These are not your everyday ranges, but they exist. You just gotta get the licenses that the range owners got. 99.99% of people can’t afford to buy it, refine it, store it and deal with the waste. And the uranium supply is already controlled by the governments of the world. I don’t think they’d be giving it up to anybody regardless, even if Bill Gates offers them 100 billion. As stated above, if you really want to, you can already do that with tanks. As for helicopters, pretty sure most of them scraped or sold to other governments after they are done with them. See #3.",190bc011-c165-4108-835d-25e3f974fa07
+">First question, who are you imagining you’ll be shooting with it? I'm not saying I'd be shooting at anybody. But, if citizens were to take up arms against the government, I imagine they'd be shooting at soldiers. >You haven’t really thought about this. I like to think I've put some degree of thought into this. >What would have to happen in this country that justifies turning a large portion of it into a war zone? Government tyranny. >The very presence of guns in the population would just propel us toward violence instead of solving the problem a better way. What's a good way of dealing with tyranny?",f2b07750-3cba-4db3-a43c-6125fc68b051
+">Most of the time you would be paired up with lazy bums who will look for any reason to not do their part, some would refuse to even meet to discuss and when presentation day comes, they'll come up pretending like they did something and if you dear tell the truth to the teacher about the people who actually did their work, the whole class goes against you because no one likes a teacher sucking Snitch. An essential lesson to learn as you prepare to join the workforce. Also, the way to help people deal with anxiety is not to shelter them from the things that cause anxiety.",8061d1bb-d907-4c86-a6d6-170642826d97
+"But I was thinking about this recently since my daughter has a group project. It's not like a job because in a job, someone makes decisions. In her school group project you have to all work out everything by talking it out. I told her that in a real job the group submits ideas and a leader will make a decision. They do vote on decisions but it slows them down and they end up playing favorites with eachother. I actually thought ""maybe this is a lesson on why you need a decision maker"" but I don't think it is.",e03d0ee8-21bb-4366-a72d-ca622dcfcd5c
+"!delta. You brought up a lot of interesting points and answered a lot my concerns but I want address your first point about determining who did and didn't do work, I think this strategy can work, that is if the students are willing to co-operate with the teacher but again I feel it depends on the students for example in middle school, someone who is more liked or popular can convince his or her peers to lie that he or she did something in the project and in some cases the others just go with because of his or her class status and if you say something it could either lead to bullying or ridicule because you snitched. Students have formed this mentally that we should stick up for each other from the adults but only to those who in there eyes deserve it and not those that actually deserve it and that something I feel needs to die out.",694b8766-2634-4d00-b3d2-8f93d8baee77
+"This argument is so dumb. Do you think laws should ever be used in any situation? Laws are actually not usually to prevent something oer se. I mean sure, if it means one kid isnt going to be able to grab daddys gun and murder an elementary school beavuse he got rejected from prom, thats already a positive. But for the most part, they exist to have the punishments in place for doing something we as society deem bad. You and I (hopefully) agree murder is bad, and it should remain illegal. But murder still happens. Does this mean we shouldnt even bother enforcing laws against murder? No, because thats how we say its bad is by making laws that specifically call for punishments of violating it.",277d6a93-14e3-41f9-8227-00c609f830c3
+"Gun crime is an irrelevant statistic. If gun control lowers gun crime but all other non-gun specific types of crime statistics stay the same, the gun control does no good for society. If gun control replaces gun robberies with knife robberies, mass shooting with driving a car into a crowd, and gun murder with acid attacks, it really isn't doing much. Gun control also has a few negatives. Guns can help people defend themselves, especially smaller people who don't stand much of a chance fighting with their hands. Gun control also takes away a lot of power from the people and gives it to the government.",f0f8df0b-84c6-474e-914f-ceca2979e3e1
+"Thank you for pointing that out. I’m not extremely attuned with the political world, and just have thought about this from a more logical and theoretical perspective so maybe I should specify my post to reflect that. I totally agree with this and in a perfect world, that’s the solution. But my main concern is the amount of excess damage that would be caused without a citizen’s ability to defend themselves against those who do smuggle them in, or produce them, which they will. Economics teaches us that black markets do occur under such conditions. The shooting in the Texan church earlier is a prime example of my thoughts playing out and the benefits of armed citizens. That gunman had seconds to do damage before being neutralized, which would’ve been much worse if the citizens were restricted from carrying weapons of lethal potential.",346582c3-bb8f-4dea-8afd-b7409cca4aad
+I grew up with a dad who was a serial cheater. And he would see women that didnt have a problem with him being married. These women would call him at our house when I was only 8 years old. They knew what they were doing when they asked my mother to speak to my dad. People who knowingly date married people deserve how they are treated. They are knowingly complicit in hurting another person I know your speaking in broader terms but if you are aware that someone is in a committed relationship and engage with them anyway it's like saying you dont give a crap about anyone but yourself and what you want. Now someone not knowing because the person in a relationship hides it well does not deserve the same treatment imo if they end it when they find out. But having seen it first hand I dont have any sympathy for someone who willingly participates in an affair.,49b6ef19-2b80-4aa5-b42f-bb15f1599802
+"> huge difference between knowingly and unknowingly. Yes this! I'm from a country where extramarital affairs are handled by the criminal court (instead of civil) and this is a source of controversy, since both parties involved in the affair are equally responsible in the eyes of the law. Women have to be extra cautious when they date men above a certain age (the flip is rare). It's not in the culture to wear wedding rings regularly, so you can't use ring marks to tell. There are online resources teaching people how to sneak peeks (and authenticate) their SO's citizenship card (which contains marital information). If you date the wrong man, you might be fined or thrown in jail. It's wild. (On the flip side, a disgruntled ex might use this as a tactic as well. They can drag out the divorce process (both parties have to agree to the divorce), so that the other person cannot get on with their lives and start dating again.)",128e52ca-230a-491b-bf92-103bf2c8aa84
+"All of those things that she did is terrible. For starters, she's literally with you at the same time. She is an asshole for being aggressive about it, but not an asshole for being interested in him. I'm a little confused though, were you guys dating at the time of all this going down? If no, she wasn't intruding or impeding on any relationship. If yes, what the hell was your SO doing and why would they openly let some girl consistently try to hook up with them, let alone when their girlfriend is over? She seems like a piece of shit for being that aggressive and persistent in trying to get with someone when they weren't interested (not because he was in a relationship(?)). Need a bit more clarity on the situation though before I can respond appropriately",6d72a43c-942a-4f67-b724-8d2f51347a0e
+"The main reasons that US immigration policy is being discussed could perhaps be the historical context of US as a very friendly country of immigrants. Previously and for a long time the government would even incentivize people to immigrate. There has been laws in 19th century that curtailed immigrants from Asia, and there has also been laws that specifically said white people could get permanent residency with two years living in the country. So the attitude towards immigrants are perhaps like a pendulum. A country needs specific laborers or skills, that are most easily accessible in other countries, which creates immigration. Economic regression among the ""natives"" then can create dislike and hatred because the new groups are getting success but they dont get it. I agree that illegal immigration shouldn't be encouraged, because it is illegal, but economically and socially the effects of illegal immigration and legal immigration seem to be minimal. It seem that it doesn't matter that much wether or not the immigration was legal or an illegal process. Immigration can be happen for a plethora of reasons but certainly if a country would experience a large amount of population escaping that country, the typically respons would be to call it a crisis or something like that. Its not like Syria was considered a country of redemption because of their large amount of refugees.",dacaedff-12f0-4783-b911-dc532cfe11b3
+"""an inherent right. When you move within a country (for example, from one city to another), is your host city being incredibly magnanimous and altruistic by deigning to allow you to live and work there?"" You messed with my head in the right way with this one. I mean I shared your view before, but never thought to think about this comparison. on a sidenote: i am now getting curious about how the european union organized the whole ""right to travel and work everywhere in the eu""- thing for the citizens. As it is a rather new concept for nation states, i really wonder how they implemented it.",cdd1ebb1-e62a-4542-9191-017620ed3d74
+"If you want to bring up stolen land then you either have to accept all of human history whcih is filled with stolen land, genocide, slavery, etc. Or none of it. You can't hold history only against the US when it suits your arguement. You have to be consistent or your arguement is worthless. I'm perfectly fine with our neighboring countries asking for help from the U.S. The thing is that they don't ask for help. They turn a blind eye and place the burden of fixing this problem onto the U.S. And yes. If my country needed me to stay and fight, to build and educate during a time of crisis, I would because i believe that problems are best solved head on. But these people fleeing from violence give up and abandon their homes. They pack up and leave and no longer care about the people that get left behind. Sure they might send money to family members but very few illegal immigrants would ever go back to build up the country that they left.",c132415c-852c-4fb9-ab59-25c3f472a5a4
+"Your vote counts precisely because it contributes to preventing the situation of large numbers of people not voting. You also list an example of an outlier case where that one vote can matter. You even list arguments against not voting. You have largely exhausted arguments for voting. Sure, you're unlikely to witness any direct outcomes. You're just as unlikely to witness outcomes when donating a small tip to some political campaign you support. You make little difference whenever you donate to any charity, as an average person. But the difference doesn't have to be noticeable in order for it to be real. The innate problem here is formulated as a variation of the Sorites paradox: instead of asking when a grain of sand becomes a heap, you ask: when will my one vote matter, or be worth my time and resources in putting in that vote? And you'll be unlikely to notice the difference it makes. It's on a small scale. But it influences differences on a far grander scale: the legislative body's distribution is impacted by your vote. And on this level, smaller numbers are needed to cause different outcomes. Your idea does not solve the Sorites paradox-variant that is democratic voting.",d29bbe6b-8839-4ed4-9487-8cea92dc5043
+"This is the only argument in this thread that actually addresses OP's point. Here's the counter. I don't litter because: -there are concrete problems that arise if I litter (I may be fined, or if I'm with people I may be judged) -it's extremely easy not to litter, I can hang onto whatever I have and find a trash can Voting is different in this case, because researching candidates, keeping up with politics, and going to vote takes HOURS of effort. Regardless of whether I want to vote, because I morally think that everybody should vote, it's going to take a huge chunk of time to do so. Extending the litter analogy. I think if it took hours out of your day to find a trash can, more people absolutely would litter.",70f9dcd3-6e44-4fce-a2d1-a0e096fc0d41
+">It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle Ok, I don't have a good source but this is something I learned in Sunday school. The Eye of a Needle does not refer to an actual sowing needle. In ancient cities with walls, there were always two gates. The main, really big, really impressive one, and a small really skinny one. This second one was called the Eye of the Needle. Many of these walls at this time were many feet thick, making a hallway of sorts to walk down. It's actually a fairly clever comparison because the more goods you have on your camel (the richer you are), the more snug the fit is going to be, easily knocking stuff off if the camel isn't loaded right. Meanwhile a poor person with little to no belongings could march right through. This website provides this explanation and a couple of other likely explanations. Long story short, it's a metaphor no matter how you look at it. Some metaphors fit fairly well irl (like white on rice) and some are extremely exaggerated (like a bull in a china shop).",5f82d918-546d-4e5d-971b-c0aa6ad8906a
+"It's an interesting analogy. I would say: You're right that my 1 piece of gum doesn't tie-break whether the city gets condemned or something equally dramatic, but you're defining that as the parameter I should care about. For me personally, if I say drop a piece of gum on the ground, my parameter is that this has a concrete negative impact on others, since someone will likely step on it and it'll cause them grief. So even though my contribution to littering is a small part of the whole (i.e. I am 1 of 1 million gum things on the ground), it's still a concrete negative impact. Whereas suppose I drop an empty ballot into the box, it has no concrete effect on the election unless the vote is decided by 1. I think others have mentioned that I should redefine my impact of voting to not just whether it affects the outcome, but other parameters (e.g. people have died so I can vote; it helps represent my interests; etc.), so that resonates with how you're using your analogy. In other words, if I only cared about littering in the context of getting the city condemned then I should litter <-> if I only cared about the binary result of an election, then maybe I wouldn't vote. But there are other reasons not to litter, and other reasons not to vote. (And for voting, there's of course the economies of scale which we all understand, the whole ""drops in the ocean together cause a tidal wave"").",8c2344df-f407-40a6-9bf6-ac62b852f502
+"So from which retailer should I buy my stuff? Most of them are owned by billionaires and have exploitative labor environments. They sell products that are produced under atrocious conditions. Furthermore, this way to organize wealth leads to an extreme level of waste before the product even arrives at the customer. Sure, there are retailers with acceptable working conditions and some of them buy their products from suppliers with high ethical standards. If those options are available or if you can safely acquire the goods without partaking in capitalism, I'd consider it an ethical imperative to refrain from using amazon. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and nobody needs to waste their energy and/or money to save their local Walmart.",151e7583-b7cb-42e0-9011-153498427fa0
+"I do love Amazon for books since I can't find most of the ones I'm interested in at retail stores at all, but this isn't the whole story here. Amazon's business isn't just selling things, but being a digital platform or hub for buyers. The important thing however, is that Amazon has its own lines of products and can use its hub to control prices and exclude or undermine their competition through their algorithms- or exclude competition for other sellers on its hub, like its deal with Apple to exclude other sellers of their products. Through this they are able to take over smaller select markets. It's a subtle monopoly, but it is a monopoly insofar as it uses anti-competitive monopolistic business practices for its advantage - there's no 100% monopoly exactly so we should be nuanced and point out how it is monopolistic even if it doesn't have absolute control or ownership. I also think Amazon could perhaps operate without these practices and still succeed, but then of course this opens up the possibility than a more unscrupulous company might pull ahead of it by not limiting themselves ethically. Fair competition is much different than open competition. The difficulty is, how do we even make competitions fair? We can't just have no rules, and the rules can't be set by the market. With things like hubs and platforms and services where we all really do just want to have a ""one stop shop"" to not have to log into a bunch of different sites, any company that pulls ahead enough to become the popular one makes it harder for even better platforms to compete - because they already have tons of users(same deal with social sites to an extent). They lend themselves to monopoly, in a sense, because we want them to be kind of like a monopoly. A way to point at this is the question ""how many alternative services have you tried?"" For many people, the answer is near zero. They picked the big obvious one everyone else is using and can't be arsed to try others.",6df1ed9d-618c-4f8c-a914-3c3a876bd6d5
+"Ulterior motives for Amazon haters don't disprove my view, and I'm not arguing against your points that Amazon creates value and efficiency, and does it well, and doesn't ""deserve"" their market share, which is 38% of e-commerce (in the 40s last year.) And your ""capitalism benefits society"" is tangential; did I say that it didn't? I'm saying Amazon is a monopoly of the marketplace, and if pro-capitalists think that a plethora of competitors is necessary for growth, then Amazon should be anathema -- they might not satisfy anti-trust law, but they should satisfy the ""worrisome enough for me to not give them $99 a year for the privilege of giving them $700 more",088398a0-b610-420e-a727-a77acd8fa53d
+The fact that autism appeared from people who had no symptoms originally killing off people who have it now or preventing them from having children is not a guaranteed way to prevent it from ever happening again. It could very much just really occur naturally and even if we attempted to prevent reproduction of the autism gene we'd have to stop everyone who is in their family because it could be a recessive gene and we wouldn't know how far back it goes. what you're proposing is an impossible situation even if we have everybody alive agree,19a410e3-653f-40be-8c05-e87a2ffb66a8
+"I think this point is the key. If we start a system of genetic selection based on what it takes to succeed in this society, ESPECIALLY if that system is put in place by governmental bodies with a lot of control over society, we can hit a slippery slope pretty quick. Imagine if we started genetic selection for the most intelligent babies. How does one define intelligence? Memorizing information and following direction perfectly? That future looks pretty bleak and dystopian if the wrong people are in charge of a country of perfectly obedient high-performing worker bees. Genetic meddling needs a lot of debate and discussion and boundary-drawing before people at the top start playing God.",e1cec4a8-1ed2-4486-b5ec-2f86c7d3d9a2
+"So I think your point is to stop thinking of autism as a disease, or a lesser trait but as a different trait, a trait that is being discriminated against in our society. I think this does apply to people on the spectrum who can function as good as typical people just their brains works differently. I think this is a very positive way to think of this. Unfortunately I've always been exposed a lot to ideas like if someone doesn't fit in current society as good as others then they're weak and only have themselves to blame. I see progress in other countries to be more inclusive to different people, and I really like this aspect, back home I still hear a lot about how that is impractical, and I think deep down in my head the idea of people being different/can't fit in/needing special assisstance= being lesser is still very hard to get rid of entirely. Also I'm glad that most people seem to agree that if a baby has medical conditions so severe that it almost guarantees death people can choose to terminate pregnancy without it being considered eugenics.",35aad2a9-0178-4f0f-8669-5eb4639db232
+"For the sake of argument, assume the following examples are not threatening you. Say a 7 year old breaks into your home, is it right to kill them? No, of course not. Only a sociopath would assert otherwise. Now, let's say an adult with severe learning disabilities breaks into your home, is it right to kill them? Most of us would correctly say no. Their intentions and motivations don't matter. Whether or not you fear for your life doesn't matter. What matters is lethal force isn't required because you are not being threatened. The example you cited isn't a case of self-defense. The man laid a trap. He planned their deaths and executed them. Regardless, here's a tragic story of a trespasser who forfeited his life because his killer immediately escalated to lethal force.",9f357175-ba91-4326-ba38-5acd71cb17c0
+"For the present day, I think it's that a lot of Americans lack trust in the criminal justice system. There are a lot of stories about judges letting obvious wrongdoers go free on technicalities, or gave them only light sentences due to ""bad life circumstances"" driving them to do such acts. True or not, this is the perception a lot of Americans have. If you put a lot of stock in the historic roots of such behavior, it's because Americans, especially in Middle America and most of all in rural areas, have an almost sacrosanct notion of ""owing their own land"", being the primary protector of that property, family, and such. Not to mention that you are somehow a ""lesser man"" if you can't defend such property and even defend yourself. Apparently this is rooted in the frontier notions, back before modern transportation, communication, and such. Again, there's less of this notion in medium to large metropolitan areas, so not all areas of the US are like this.",af199960-2587-41bd-bd15-d9b696d07599
+"While I have changed my view on the example posted because I found out somethings that I had previously not read about, I still don't think not parking in front of your house is setting a trap for people to rob you. I live in a place where i am unable to park in front of my home, often sit in a dark room on my PC and have food and drink around me. If I owned a gun, and someone broke in, I then shot and killed them, would you say I laid a trap for potential intruders? There are other things the man did that I can't justify, but what I had orginally read essentially read like they locked a man in prison for life, because he had parked his vehicle in an unusual place. This was clearly not the case. I just misread/didn't research enough. !delta",49d21431-79cf-492e-9229-c9e8fca4e1c0
+"Your examples don't work for the simple reason that these, among other things, are examples of things that everyone knows have questionable or variable legal status. Consequently, when in doubt, the burden is on you to verify legality in the jurisdiction you stumble in. If we granted your argument, we could say the same thing about age of consent, legal drinking age, marriage age, etc. It would also incentivize people to actively avoid learning about the laws of the area they are in. Furthermore, we already have an exception to the ignorance of the law rule. If you are put in ignorance of the law by someone in a position of power then you can use it as a defence. For instance, if you call a lawyer for advice, and he tells you yeah that's 100% legal, and it's reasonable to believe his advice, then you can't be held responsible when it turns out it was 100% illegal.",9afe1fce-c101-4313-87f3-66a38bd6832a
+"The arguments made were not great, but the fact of the matter is that it is literally impossible for a citizen of the USA to know every law which they are technically required to follow. I mean, you can read them. For high/average speed reader, it would take about the years of full time reading to go through them all once (hope they don't change while you are reading), but the chances that the average person would understand them and remember them is zero. This means that it is impossible for a person to ensure that they are not breaking laws. How is it reasonable to punish someone for failing at a task which is impossible?",378cd79d-76f9-474f-a0ad-0b3181b7e67e
+"!delta I can mostly agree with you, but I do still think there are cases where what people would call common sense would just lead them to assume something was legal. I know what I'm saying kind of comes off as grasping at straws, but I'll be the first to admit that my examples were bad. As a better one, hypothetically, if someone got in trouble for an obscure and archaic law like washing a donkey on a Wednesday, obviously common sense would dictate this would be legal, and I don't really think an average person would be inclined to google if this was allowed. That specific scenario has never happened and likely never will, but it's just an example. One real life example was, as a kid, we went on vacation to Florida. My brother was 11, but under average height for his age because of health issues. In my state (this is based on what I remember, so it may not be entirely correct, but could still serve as an example), the requirement for a child in a car seat was based on age. But from what I remember, in Florida, it was based on age or height. My brother was over the age where a car seat was required in Florida, but under the height requirement. He wasn't exceptionally short, just moreso than average. And my parents actually got a talking to (no ticket) by a cop about this, and had no clue about it beforehand. And while you could say they should've looked this up in advance, he was honestly probably too big for most car seats anyways.",34e61a30-8337-4c6b-98ce-b6c55a9a6fcd
+"I think we can agree that people who still support Trump at the time of impeachment will support him through the entire impeachment process, and those who do not support Trump will not gain support for Trump from impeachment. The question then, is how does impeachment affect the moderates/independents. You seem to think that moderates will sympathize with Trump. Why do you think that the process of impeachment will make moderates sympathize with Trump instead of turn against him? Rarely do trial process make the public feel bad for the accused. Even if he's found innocent, which the Senate will most likely make their verdict, the public knows the vote will be along party lines and therefore not an objective trial.",92328ffe-5c5d-4e7c-a75b-1d266a6389bd
+"Favorability/approval is NOT the same thing as percent of votes. Plenty of people will vote for him even if they don't approve of him - for example, if they approve his opponent even less, or if they need him to win for other issues (supreme court judges not the least of them). To prove this point, Trump only had 37% favorability when he won the election in 2016, yet he got 46% of the vote. Anyway, Trump's current approval rating of 43% is way higher than his 37% when he won the election. He easily has enough support to win again. Incumbent advantage is huge.",8f5cff37-3a7f-4376-b302-9b124fb95c81
+">The Trump and Clinton impeachment’s are not equivalent. One is about attempting to get foreign interference in the upcoming election to damage a political opponent, while the other was about getting a blowjob from an intern. One of those things damages democracy while the other merely damages a marriage. > I agree with you entirely, but both by letter of the law are impeacable offenses, so bill Clinton, regardless of what he lied under oath about, should have been impeached and removed. His polls show 90% approval eithin the Republican party, so any legitimate republican opposition should be showing up in the polls by now. The fact that 2 democrats broke rank to vote no and one defected to the Republicans implies to me that if anything, the democrats are playing politics",d4338e0e-b78f-4bda-bde5-de6845ffe10b
+"Many good points so far. I will add that the complaints are often how their wealth is viewed by the wealthy person themselves. The ceo might hold themself up as the example of how the system works, and work hard pays and completely ignore the nepotism and luck and bullshit in the system. It seems like actors specifically acknowledge all of those things. Often pointing out how they got lucky, how many great actors never got the shot they deserve because the system is fickle etc. People aren’t mad CEO’s have money (at least I’m not). People are mad at how hard they fight against changing a system that is wildly unequal.",04f25024-f778-426a-a235-ca1570151172
+">Aren't CEOs lucky beneficiries of capitalism too? A CEO or someone who creates a business has an idea or a product and a person has their money and believes that product to be worth giving their money to the person with the product or idea for. The person gets the product or the idea and the business person gets the money. The reason a CEO has a lot of money is because they are selling something that people find extremely valuable. I find it difficult to understand your point that this is inherently unethical. On the otherhand the same thing is to be said for an actor because the only reason they are paid as much as they are is because they are producing something valuable enough that people are willing to spend money on it. I really can't see your point that one more valuable than the other, especailly when one is reasonsible for thousands of jobs and livlihoods and the other produces a material that really no functional value outside of entertainment.",bb4e4e59-73b4-49eb-b437-25006471fa35
+"Well, first of all thanks for an interesting take. I totally agree that sustainable solutions (such as micro loans) are the way to go in lieu of dumping cash at a problem. However even I am aware of that, and I don't need a master's in business to know I could funnel cash into a well-run micro-loan charity already running. Business folks might understand the runnings of, for example, waste management, but I don't think that makes them an expert in sustainable and lasting change necessarily. Most of the outrage I have heard is directed at the 1%. And Mrs. Curtis is definitely in the 1%.",000a4740-78aa-47c9-bc5f-c12c7f377201
+"But if Harry calls “dibs” on Sally, but Sally falls for Henry and Henry also has feelings for Sally then this concept prevents two people who may have a happy relationship from doing so. If Sally was going to like Harry, she was going to like him regardless of whether he called dibs or not. Let her decide who she wants, don’t try to lower her options. You call dibs on an object. Not a human being. The concept is weird an possessive and takes away Sally’s choice. If she chooses Henry and Harry is making Henry tell her no then he’s removing the choice from both people. That’s not what a good friend does. That’s not what a good partner for Sally would do. If there’s an actual reason Harry doesn’t want Henry and Sally together, having a normal conversation about it is WAY more respectful than laying claim to a person who might not even be interested.",78dda45b-08f7-4a06-a4a1-98d343aa35e2
+"""Dibs"" does not grant ownership in any case. You can't call dibs on a slice of pizza that is owned by the table next to you because it is not yours to take. Similarly, calling dibs on another person does not mean that they have to reciprocate, nor does it prevent them from forming any other relationships. So no, you don't get ownership just by saying a single word. > The problem here, is mostly your choice of term, dibs. You are correct that it is a truely childish term to actually use, but the concept behind it is less so. It is also not one that is limited to the bro-code, as it could be a friendship-ending thing to hook up with your friend's crush no matter what gender they are.",84cce89f-4f76-49e7-8cb9-a3f58e31affb
+"Well, I just want to note that there's a distinction between corporate billionaires and non-corporate billionaires. Since your argument is that corporate billionaires have too much power, I just want to point out not all billionaires are at the helm of a large corporation with thousands of employees. Ok on to your overall point, so take for example Jeff Bezos. I think he's a good example of exactly what you seem to be referring to. Do you think it's fair for Bezos to have majority ownership of the company given that he founded it? PS: I searched up distributism and I think I might be a new convert.It's very free market/perfect competition sounding and has a bit of a thomas jefferson ring to it!",e3b1b52c-3c87-4666-af0a-7e92ade6b235
+"> Given your timeline, what happens if a species developed long before us? In terms of earth, what happens if the asteroid doesn't kill the dinosaurs and one of those species evolves into the dominant intelligence on earth (giving a several million year jump forward on development). Are you saying that if not for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, we would have had intelligent life sooner? I'm not so sure about that. Mammals evolved to be small, efficient little surviving machines. They needed to reproduce rapidly with large litters in order to ensure survival. They needed to give birth to live young, in order to better thermoregulate their growing embryos in harsh conditions. They needed to be able to survive on a small amount of food, and a variety of different foods. They required large brains and high intelligence. And that's why early mammals survived the extinction, as well as many other smaller extinction events since then, and the dinosaurs did not. If there were no dinosaur extinction, then we'd still have dinosaurs. If we still had dinosaurs we wouldn't have humans, because we would be eaten by the dinosaurs. If anything, MORE extinction events, ice ages, and other harsher conditions would drive evolution through survival of the fittest, and potentially result in intelligent life being developed sooner.",1f7f151d-55a3-467b-a36b-5b1b4b1b8c6f
+"> Calling dibs is about not getting your pride hurt and not wanting the competition. I disagree, I think it is about avoiding what you said next, ""If you like someone and they end up with your friend that can be a friendship ending drama."" > What if you call dibs literally 2 seconds after seeing the person? Are your friends all supposed to not persue them like you called shotgun getting in a car? Sure? I think that is a silly and childish thing and I don't think that an extreme example like that refutes the overall point. But ultimately I don't think not pursuing a girl you met literally 2 seconds ago is a big loss and if it makes your friend happy, why not?",5b9aa4c1-1c51-474b-ad1d-3acf78ae242e
+"Even if you believe someone's net worth is a measure of the value they add to society, no one works that much harder than anyone else, barring, like, babies and coma patients. A few million? Maybe, and I personally think that's pushing it. Let's put it in perspective. A billionaire can get drunk, gift everyone in this thread a lambo(~$200k per), forget they did, and it wouldn't really affect them - they're not going to go into debt. They're not going to lose their house. They're not going to have to decide between food and heat because they spent money in a stupid way. If you worked for 16.50 an hour for fifty years, taking no sick days or vacations, you'd gross about 1.7 million. About a quarter(depending how the thread grows) of what this hypothetical billionaire tossed into a blender on a whim. And it doesn't have to be lambos - there are no shortage of social ills this hypothetical billionaire could wake up one day and just. decide to solve. But they don't, because desperate people are easier to exploit. There's a profit motive to making life worse on the ground. That's not ""waaah it's unfair."" That's grotesque.",b53cfddb-73d1-45c2-bcb5-7b870b5262a4
+"> > Let me provide a helpful example: If you have one billion dollars invested in a passive investment fund with a 2% annual return (when you are this big, this is not hard), you can earn 20 million dollars a year simply in passive income or 1.6 million a month Where do you get 2% from if you are just hoarding it? Oh yeah, by loaning it. You are investing in companies that lets them run > I do however have a problem with wealthy people who count their wealth in people they personally command to do whatever they want. That is called slavery and is illegal",78e071f1-7549-4a0b-869d-3f6b55303b52
+But diamonds aren't particularly unique in that people care about the history of that particular object. People pay to enter a museum to see the plane flown by the Wright brothers. They'd be less excited to see a plane that was structurally identical but was made last Thursday. Many people cherish objects passed down from dead relatives. How many would be happy to exchange a piece of furniture in their family for generations for one made last Thursday? Caring about the history of an object even when that history doesn't practically effect your experience of the object isn't rare.,5c6117d0-83ea-4937-bf51-b2944307679f
+"I have two responses, a serious response and a fun response. Serious: there are two possibilities, one is that aliens don’t exist, at least not at the same time we are right now, but we’ll ignore that one. There are two possibilities I see: one is the Area 51 type idea, where we have found aliens but the government is keeping them hidden for security and/or research purposes, or that aliens have found a way to hide themselves. What if they don’t want us to find them? Assuming they’re more advanced than us, we likely never will. Fun- We are aliens from another planet sent to colonize this planet millions of years ago, isolated from the mother world as an experiment.",2f10160d-f4a2-4f6f-810a-193c527cf0e7
+">Who is saying that? Most famously, Fermi Paradox does. And it states the following There are billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun. With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets, and if the Earth is typical, some may have already developed intelligent life. Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step the Earth is investigating now. Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years And since many of the stars similar to the Sun are billions of years older, this would seem to provide plenty of time. According to this line of reasoning, the Earth should have already been visited by an extraterrestrial civilization, or at least their probes. However, to me, this line of reasoning does not stand up to the timeline as mentioned in my original argument.",520c02a5-e9cb-42ce-b6cc-359711932614
+"The reason why Mozart and Beethoven were remembered so well is because they were thensuper stars of their time. Just like women would rip each other's hair out and faint at the sight of a famous castrato before that, or how people react to someone like Britney Spears today. John Williams won't be remembered because most people don't care or know about him. Do you honestly think that if you went outside and asked the average person what they think about John Williams, that they'd even have a clue who that is? How can you possibly think that his bame will live on more than someone like Elvis and the Beetles when people in this generation don't know of him?",fc70aaff-d502-46e4-89d6-0edbf2047d47
+"Not just Dvorak, some of John Williams’ most iconic themes are drawing heavily from other composers. Listen to Gustav Holst’s The Planets Suite. Saturn sure sounds a lot like the theme from Indiana Jones in the temple the Ark was kept it. That opening Star Wars theme was based on another film score from King’s Row. The Jaws theme is from a Dvorak Symphony. Listen to the 3rd movement of Tchaikovsky’s 6th Symphony. It sounds a lot like that ending scene in A New Hope when they’re handing out medals. (About 2 minutes into the video) Williams “borrows” themes from tons of classical composers. One would think that a legendary Beethoven-caliber composer would be more original. He’s acting more like a DJ, taking hot tracks and rearranging them to fit the film. Now, he is very good at what he does, but he’s very much “standing on the shoulders of giants.” Edit: changed Grail to Ark. Had my holy relics confused. Dr. Jones would be ashamed.",e0ff2efc-87d4-4556-8b51-e669bde458af
+"I see your argument about Pop music making a change, but there is no single band that carried the movement. The Beatles were big, but in the same timespan of John Williams career we have: The Beatles, Garth Brooks, Elvis Presley, the Eagles, Led Zeppelin, Billy Joel, Elton John, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, George Strait, Barbra Streisand, The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, Mariah Carey, Metallica, Whitney Houston, and Van Halen. That's a lot of names competing under the pop/modern rock/modern country umbrella. The only artist that comes close to having as long of an influential career as John Williams is Weird Al. and I think we can all agree Al won't be going down in the history books (although he's great).",da747765-0a25-4610-98d4-c59c2f548647
+"The issue with Kylo isn't that he isn't ""a good guy"", but that he doesn't do things, even when they are in his own interest. Villains, good guys, side characters - you give them motives and then they chase those motives. If you have a character that just seems unmotivated or acting entirely erratically, that tends to be critiqued. It's fine that Kylo is a bad guy, but what is he seeking to actually do, what goals does he seek, and most importantly what does he actually do to make those things happen? That's the problem. Ep 7, Rey seeks skywalker. Ep 8, Finn seeks to destroy the beacon. Clear goals, clear attempts to achieve the goals. Note, the character doesn't have to succeed, but they need to have a target and need to try, and Kylo is essentially flailing around in the dark.",d253b8a0-eb36-40e0-b12e-bdb5628e4434
+"> -His motives are all over the place. I still have no idea why he decided to kill Smoke, and then he acts like he's Rey's ally now, but then he turns around and tries to kill her. What is he trying to accomplish? Honestly, isn't it obvious? He wants power. Snoke was his boss and was a dick that tortured him. By killing Snoke, he gets rid of what pretty much constitutes an enemy for him and becomes the new Supreme Leader (ergo, power, he now gets to rule everything / everyone). About Rey: also pretty simple. He wants her to join him. Since the first film, whenever they fought he wasn't going all in on killing her. He wants her on his side. The thing is, though, they're still enemies and she is refusing to join him, so they end up fighting every now and then.",ee32ff94-77ab-4788-9a70-b6d8f1252dea
+"> I don't find him relatable because he goes to huge lengths: killing people, rising to the top of the First Order, serving some old ghoul, killing his own father. all for what? What does he hope to gain that justifies those things? He clearly struggles with killing his father, so why does he do it? > > He is relatable only as a metaphor to me. Obviously the stakes are smaller in regular life, but the gist of KR (gravitating towards bad choices that hurt others for no concrete reason) is relatable. >He idolizes Vader, but why? His teacher was Luke, and Luke could and probably would have told him all there was to know about Vader. What is there to idolize about a broken man in a life support suit with anger problems? I can see Vader's reputation having some appeal to it, but here's the thing: he was surrounded by people who knew exactly who Vader was, what was true about him, and how things ended up. Why do people IRL hang out with losers that sell drugs and beat up others? Often the answer is cause they think those guys are cool and edgy for whatever reason. Just look at how some thuggish people talk and brag about their criminal endeavors like they think it's just so cool to live like that.",e999c51d-8d29-472f-a4a6-e4ef89f2216b
+"You say that liberalism will always have capitalism, but this isn't really true. I agree that it will always produce something that is sort of capitalist, but it rarely will ever have legitimately free capitalistic markets. You mentioned the US a little, so I will too. The US isn't very capitalist, it has too many regulation for the markets to really be free. It's more capitalist than some other nations, but that really isn't saying much. In the US, big companies are constantly lobbying to keep themselves on top, which is very anti-capitalistic. This lobbying leads to regulations being favorable to those big companies, allowing them to create the wealth inequality we see today. With free markets, smaller companies wouldn't be oppressed by these lobbyists and competition would prevail, leading to less wealthy inequality.",2228ece9-f235-4559-88af-40df5c1f3b08
+"While fascism is considered far right today and communism on the far left, that wasn't really the case in the 1920s-1940s. The far right ideology of those times would have been Monarchism. USSR was socialist/communist, which means the means of production belonged to the people (read:state). Thus it was a left wing ideology Fascism or nazism was socialist as well. The philosophy is that the state controlled the ultimate direction of the economy and the state had a right to do what it deems best for the people as a whole, even if that meant killing certain groups (read:Jews). Thus it was also a left wing. So while Nazi Germany was ideologically opposed to the Soviet Union, which it claimed was Judeo-Bolshevik, in practise both states executed a similar pattern of totalitarianism and ideologically were not that different.",c2985afc-1bc1-4224-a399-3b43d38ae273
+"Saying that most STIs are easily treatable assumes that everyone who gets one has easy access to affordable health care, and this simply isn’t true. Also, I absolutely agree that the stigma is misinformed and is mostly based on alarmism and negative attitudes about sex in general. However, I don’t see how it’s more dangerous than if everyone had a lax attitude toward it. People should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to sleep with someone who has a STI. I would never shame someone for contracting a STI. However, I’d never judge someone for choosing not to sleep someone with a STI either.",423e747a-84f1-41a2-93cc-48b2fd299e7e
+"That's nothing. On the first test in my freshman physics, 2/3 of the class got a zero. It was graded on a curve and I got a ""B"" because I had a 33%. The one person out of 300 that got 100% on that test was a nontraditional student who had been an electronics technician for ten years. (As a senior he was my lab partner in microprocessors class to my great benefit.) A not insignificant number of people dropped the class after that, but 90% of people that stuck around at least received a C. I don't think that teacher was the most engaged person when it came to his students, but as far as the most important life lessons I learned in college, that was probably one of the top 3 classes I took.",48abd7e6-d93a-4c2c-a37b-3301043f6742
+"> The gender norm being reinforced is the notion of ""man as a worker"" and that someone with a beard on their neck is ""less fit as a worker"". It's not about beauty, its about signaling laziness or lack of discipline. I agree that the neckbeard is a symbol of ""laziness or lack of discipline"" but I see it referring more to personal hygiene than fitness for employment. While the professional office setting might frown upon it, most employers don't really care about beards as long as you clean it. ""Neckbeard"" implies you make no effort to control it.",e9cb3991-b016-4b0d-8095-3cbb19b4fe26
+"Thanks for the response. I will grant you that using Santa as a proxy is a way to his the identity of the gift giver. However, there are other ways that could be done (from a mystery person), and we still do not need to lie about Santa. The present could be from Batman, and kids would get a kick out of it, even if they know Batman is not real. I feel the latter part of your response backs the argument to drop Santa. It is far more meaningful to give a gift from a real person, and show they expect nothing in return, than from an imaginary Santa character. Also, parents give gifts to their children as a matter of course, and expect nothing back. That is sort of how Christmas works, which is a big plus to the tradition.",e682ccee-adc1-4d52-840a-a2333d5573e3
+"I meant keeping them away from people with disabilities will kill them. They need to drink. You're assuming that all people can use paper cups. People with sensory issues are selective about which materials they'll use. My friend with autism can't touch the ""seams"" on a paper cup without freaking out. That's the thing - they don't go to those restaurants because they can't drink there. Should people with disabilities be prevented from going to restaurants? If they had a prescription to carry plastic straws, they could go wherever. Remember that they're trying to ban plastic straws from supermarkets too, so people will no longer be able to buy their own",fc813b9a-d097-4344-a7d3-5857861a40f9
+"Absolutely, circumstances drive behavior which is the determining factor in outcomes. The issue is that because racism led to poverty people assume they are inseparably linked. Pragmatically speaking its generational wealth, cycles of violence, and education which hinder upward mobility. So in other words, once someone's poor they'll probably stay poor regardless of race. Factors like incarceration rates, sentencing, and workplace discrimination are further barriers that hinder minorities exclusively. I'm all for doing whatever it takes (funding included) to fight these issues. This would be when helping one group of people exclusively is fine, because those issues are specific to that group. It's when the issue effects people in the same way regardless of race (shelter, food, education, ect) that I think its racist to exclude people based on their race.",05529906-403d-4f2b-8986-4481fbe2ba07
+"I agree with you and that is why I think the comparison to abortion is foolish. However, how about a comparison to safe haven laws. In many countries women have the right to anonymously surrender babies up to several months old. The argument in favor of these laws are that they prevent infanticide, especially in places where abortion access is limited. I am personally in favor of abortion and safe haven laws, and while the concern of infanticide doesn't apply with ""paper abortions"", we must acknowledge that the combination of options available to women (better contraceptive options, abortions, safe haven adoption, regular adoption) creates a massive inequality issue. Men have almost zero agency from the moment they had unsafe sex with a women. They must accept whatever a women wants to do with the child. How is this fair?",0487c474-8089-4be1-b95a-7b59846c980c
+"So, I see where you're coming from in it being more ""fair"" for the man to have some choice in the situation as well. But the problem is, that doesn't change the fact that the child exist. And this could have serious negative consequences for the child's life. Those negative consequences for the child far outweigh any cost to the father. In the long run, as these children grow up, it is also bad for society as a whole. Even if the above wasn't true. Ethically/morally, The child's wellbeing is, the way I see it, more important than the rights of the father. It had no choice in any of this and should not suffer for it. I know you don't like this as an argument, but the fact does remain that the man freely decided to have sex knowing this was a possibility. And therefor he can be held responsible while the baby can not. You're right that this also applies to the mother. And just like the father she cannot simply distance herself from the child once it's born if the father wants to raise it. There is no avoiding the fact that women carry the child and men do not, that's just how it is and unfortunately means the mother has both the choice and the physical burden when it comes to abortion. Arguing about how fair that is is pointless, because it is the way it is. But as soon as the child is born. You cannot simply abandon the child, which is true for both the father AND the mother.",e214303d-dd0b-45cf-bd1b-376579e1ba8d
+"I'd like to hear you expand on some of the reasons why you think it would go down the way it would. You're obviously able to conceive of a situation where it would go sour due to all the additional regulations and all the different potential avenues of exploitation, but I honestly don't see any compelling argument as to why and how it would go down that way, just because you are able to imagine that it would. I've tried to comb the rest of the thread to see if you've expanded on it but I can't read every single child comment. I don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other, FWIW.",ce917e3f-ea02-41a9-a74b-7e91025e783f
+"> Don't you also believe that liberal democracy will lead to a socialist society of some sort eventually? No, I think people are susceptible to propaganda and the people who have the power(wealth) to create propaganda are not going to propaganda for socialism. > Because otherwise you'd have to transition to socialism from a non-liberal democracy. And since liberal democracy always leads to fascism, socialism would have to spring from fascism or whatever post-fascist arrangement there is. If enough people are class conscious we could create a more egalitarian society but this will not happen through liberal democracy. It will happen despite liberal democracy, by protesting, rioting, overthrowing governments, .",79277934-6bc0-45e6-8d74-a38296d08b8d
+Thank you so much for butting a name for my view. Paper abortion. I didn't know this. > The only thing I can think of that may alter your view slightly is that two weeks is too short a time to make a life altering decision - especially when under incredible sociocultural + peer pressures. But two weeks is time period I think is fair for all parties. Women's decision to abort is often conditional for mens financial support. So this would mean that women gets to know if they are pregnant about 4-6 weeks into the pregnancy and get to know by week 8 if man is willing to support the child. Now this leaves woman plenty of time to decide if they want to carry out the pregnancy but it's safest when done before week 12. So in optimal case it only leaves 4 weeks for the mother.,808cbbfd-9ae3-42b0-b728-c413e30310f3
+"Imagine if, somehow, all donations from every source were capped (magically, because I’m not sure how it would be possible) at a very low amount, limiting donors’ ability to influence candidates and their campaigns. What effect do you think this would have on the relative influence of media — TV, radio, internet/online news, etc? Don’t you think those outlets would take up nearly all of the pent-up desire for influence, and thus — like Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Bezos have done — start a race for power via media? Allowing other (unlimited) donations at least has the effect of dramatically reducing media’s relative influence.",fc384d09-b418-42b8-aa10-c62aa58dcc1f
+"Exactly this. Even back in the time of the Founders, money was an enabler of speech. The Revolution would never have happened if the Founders themselves didn't have the funds to spread their message through the printing of pamphlets and leaflets - which cost serious money at the time. In order for us to have any realistic way to redress the government, we have to be allowed to purchase the resources to enable that redress, and that means that money will always be linked to the ability to get your message out. It may be a printing press to print our pamphlets, ad time on a local TV network, a plane ticket to go to a protest - but there will always - and must always - be the ability to have money enable speech.",b13715a9-a126-4b41-bd51-aa375a8b24d2
+"This wasn't the part of the case that I was talking about, but it is an interesting discussion itself. You're talking about the ""corporations deserve some human rights"" part of the decision. Specifically that corporations deserve free speech protections. Something to think about- corporations are unions of people seeking money. There may be other reasons why people join them, but money is the common factor among them. My brother owns stock in corporations that have donated to campaigns he disagreed with. Why should we consider corporations as entities which speak on behalf of their members when there is no guarantee that they do?",7d2a81b3-9447-4d7b-be2a-e13540b03af5
+"I’d say 90% of discourse around socialism or capitalism consists of people promoting policies that would make marginal moves in a socialistic (expanded social welfare programs or state ownership of utilities or another resource) or capitalistic (lower taxes and/or regulation) direction, starting from the reality of their country’s current system. The other 10% is basically conceptual or academic discourse. So I think most people promoting an expanded social welfare state have a fair understanding of what like would like if this marginal adjustment was made from their current system. (And ditto people who’d prefer less of this.)",90ee8bb0-9a44-422f-99e2-57d3bace9b9d
+"> Universal healthcare isn't socialism, that's just one more public enterprise to add to the dozens of public enterprises we already have. (Libraries, school, Fire and police, USPS, NASA, FBI, CIA, To use the USPS as an example, would you be fine with the ""universal"" option being literally bottom of the barrel care that is barely better than nothing? Because it took private industry getting into the shipping business (UPS and FedEx primarily) for USPS to get its shit together. Even so it's still plagued by its reputation is a horrible way to get a package from point A to point B.",77aab3e0-35f2-4595-9e1e-7886f08f4be1
+"""we could never talk about anything without first hand experience"". I say ""strongly promote,"" not ""talk about."" We're talking now. My thesis is that people who strongly promote, tend to do so in the absence of experiences that might make them better qualified to judge the real world manifestations of the theories that they hold. ""we can't evaluate socialism"". This sounds like you are contradicting your first point a bit. But even if you're not, to experience some degree of Socialism in the US, you can go to a public school, or into the Military or interact with the government, or apply for public assistance, or get social security. ""I won't like pies that have pears in them"" My thesis is that the standard for promoting a political ideology should be more than what is 'preferred' (i.e. ideologically) but what delivers the best results (if we can agree on what those results are).",275ed656-1629-4b8c-a47b-f6c9d652c7ab
+"I think it’s more so that Gen-Z just has a different experience of being trans. For a long time, for Gen-X and older millenial trans people the ultimate goal was to be stealth, to blend in perfectly amongst cis people and to not have anybody know that you are trans. Gen-Zon the other hand, due to growing up in a time when trans acceptance is a much more visible issue than ever before, are more interested in gaining acceptance for who they are, they want to be able to be out as a trans person, to not have to pass perfectly in order to avoid persecution. Additionally, Gen-Z have also been much more interested in challenging gender norms and perceptions of gender than Gen-X or millenials. I don’t think that someone else’s experience of gender and transness being different than yours is any reason for it not to be valid.",eb4fbac7-a442-4840-8dd8-683cfc764abf
+""".have been much more interested in challenging gender norms"" Really? In the 80s men with long hair and makeup regularly performed on stage while still claiming to be men. People were telling their children that boys playing with dolls was ok and telling their daughters they dont need makeup and they can be the president one day. Now if a girl wants short hair and hates dresses, her parents are rushing her off to the gender clinic to turn her into a boy.No offense intended to OP, but I think current day trans ideology is super repressive and relies heavily on outdaged gender stereotypes. New Tim's are always gushing about their newfound ""girly"" things, loving shopping, wearing their favorite nail polish, all the things they couldn't do when they were a ""man"". As for the non binary bunch, OP makes many salient points. Many nb women claim to be nb because ""they aren't like other women"". Because, you know, theres only one way to be a woman and that obviously involves dresses and makeup and ""feeling womanly"" and wanting to be a wife and a homemaker. And clearly you cant be a man if u enjoy eyeliner or decorating your home. I find all of it to be insulting and regressive.",bfa1418f-3b1b-422a-94d4-fb57619e0600
+"Because gender dysphoria is based on science. Transition does not just magically happen overnight. Your dna in your cells expresses rna, which in turn codes proteins. These impact the physiology of your cells and thus the overlaying tissue organization and function. Hormones (or other cell signaling molecules) like testosterone and estrogen act on receptors in these cells, which cause the types of dna being converted into rna to change. This is the basic idea of how hormones work. These changes are epigenetic in nature and can even change the cell and tissue types via dedifferentiation and redifferentiation. However this process takes years to complete. Its why i look, smell, taste, feel, etc. like a natal woman. Nonbinary people dont use hormones and dont use surgeries to accomplish this. Further they have different goals, they never want to blend into society. Ultimately categories are created to bin people or things into a set of groupings in a systematic way that allows for people to relate those groupings in ways that provide utility. When the criteria are inefficient, the utility goes away. Hence the categorization needs to be updated. We see this in science all the time: e.g. the categorization of planets due to pluto and a few other outliers always being a listed exception in discourse.",b1917401-af01-4af7-b617-9c53c0c3aab2
+">I see it the same way as art. You could have an original drawing and prints of that drawing. You could even use the exact same materials to create the prints such that, in their material nature, the original and prints are exactly the same. The original would still be worth more. Bad analogy. A better one would be something like this: >I see it the same way as art. You could have a piece of music or a photograph made in 1952. It was made with a tape deck (sorry if innaccurate) or a real camera with various tricks to create whatever effect (e.g. reverb) you wanted. Or you could have a piece created in 2019 made on a computer with all the tools already made to do those same tricks. Obviously the piece from 1952 is worth more because it was harder to make. I personally strongly disagree with this. Just because it was ""easier"" to do reverb, for example, it doesn't mean that the art was hurt. It just means that getting to the final result took different skills. A beautiful landscape photo from the 20th century and a beautiful landscape photo which had the colours enhanced with photoshop are still both beautiful regardless of the tools used. Plus (and this relates less to the analogy but while I'm here I'll say it anyway) people still have to use interesting tricks to get cool effects, it's just that they are different tricks for more advanced effects and something as simple as reverb or making a person with an ear on their forehead are now made easier because the problems have been solved. That said the two are certainly 'different' because they came from different places so idk if I can change your view so much here.",116da4cc-810b-4437-824f-fb0c058af373
+">Marketing departments convinced leoe that they needed to spend x amount on a ring in order to be worthy of their spouse But my view is that therein lies the symbolism. A diamond is a status symbol - it means that this person spent X money on you. Lab grown diamonds can be a lot cheaper, and they therefore lose that symbolic nature. Naturally formed diamonds are more rare and hard to obtain (whether due to artificial or natural limiting of supply) which is why they have that symbolic nature. Whether they hold this value because of advertising, cartels or whatever is irrelevant to my view. I already agree with you on that end. I'm just saying the difference is there, and I see someone saying ""no no no, you can't give her that. That is a fake diamond"" as more evidence of that difference. Even though they're structurally identical people clearly value them differently, so how can you say they're the same?",fda84981-6f65-4b0b-b917-dcbba5e4c171
+"Why? That's what the trolls want. They're trying to get a reaction. You're never going to win that battle. If you're a content creator that takes a lot of time. As long as you're not creating content that advocates for bad behavior, your hands are clean IMO. What does address the bad behavior mean? It's one thing to put out a statement at some point if you get popularity saying you don't condone the bad behavior. It's another thing to actually interact with those people, you won't come out ahead in those.",7930fa14-5ff6-4716-b4d5-c36abe577a90
+"In #1 you should just disable your comments section. That would be the minimum amount of responsibility that you have. You're not using it anyways, and you can see that it's being used to promote hate speech. >I believe that it's better to hear bad ideas than to silence them I get why people want to believe this, but how can you take this claim seriously? The reason anti-vaxxing is becoming a thing isn't because people heard so many good arguments for it, it's because bad arguments can be more effective than good arguments. Just increasing the amount of noise out there and expecting people to sift through it all themselves doesn't actually get positive results",40cf289b-727c-484d-937b-6d3465a524db
+"That influence is the exact thing I’m talking about. You are responsible for the influence you have. People who have large followings have much larger influence, and therefore must be more aware of the effect of their influence. Any platform they are on additionally carries that influence. Just as we look to the CEOs to be held responsible for the greater actions of the companies they oversee, so too should figureheads of other influential platforms be held responsible for the types of communities they foster. This is of course not a 1 to 1 comparison. There are ways a company can deal with outlying individual employees. When it comes to things like company culture, where a significant portion of the employees exhibit a similar behavior, that’s when we look to the figurehead to take responsibility.",468a64be-f0f0-49e6-9a3c-87f575cc74dd
+">Straws on average weigh so little—about one sixty-seventh of an ounce or .42 grams—that all those billions of straws add up to only about 2,000 tons of the nearly 9 million tons of plastic waste that yearly hits the waters. Also >estimated to be 0.03 percent of total plastic waste by mass Straws are such a small part of pollution. Why is banning them the answer? Why not force restaurants to recycle them if they want to use them? Starbucks plastic straws are recycle-able to start. >If your local recycling scheme does accept type 5 plastics a really simple trick is to place them into a larger type 5 plastic container. It’s likely the whole container will get recycled therefore including the straws in it. It’s the small things sometimes. Is manufacturing paper straws actually better? Or the lids with built in straws? How much extra manufacturing does that taken and how much does it actually help? I think it's not necessarily a bad thing but it's mostly PR at this point. Straws are not going to be what ends humanity. We do other things that do orders of magnitude more pollution.",6a3be994-6acf-40d3-8851-3e87d4e8c1f1
+"> The entire issue is a scare tactic, aimed at people who feel guilty for being affluent enough to drink whatever they want through a straw. I feel like this is just one of many examples of the media trying to make people feel bad for being in a country where we can afford this sort of luxury. You know those commercials of sad, hungry kids in Africa? Those make you feel really guilty after eating a Big Mac and fries or a steak dinner. The flipside is that there's really no reason to feel bad for not starving yourself, but dammit because someone else is starving you should feel bad for eating.",f2a8b09a-0ee1-4501-ae04-e28b014146f2
+"I am speaking from the perspective of an American here, so keep that in mind. In the US we have a longstanding tradition of separating the functions of the state from any organized religious institution. If a parent of a child feels that it is important for them to have their religious ideals taught alongside traditional academic lessons, they would have no place to send them if there were only public schools (operated by the state). Allowing private religious schools to exist allows these parents to have educational options that better fit their perceived educational needs. This is not a matter of the private schools being chosen because ""people feel that the only way for their children to get a good education is to pay for it."" Parents may feel that the academic side of public education is very good. But, due to the American system, the public schools are prohibited from including what some feel is an important piece of their child's social formation.",1548bca2-ceb0-4b58-a62d-427f2956d799
+"> How about fixing the public education system so that it is on par with private education, you know, lifting people up instead of bringing people down. Part of the issue here though is the fact that any well off families will just yank their kids to the better private schools. Well part of what makes a school good or not is the kids in it. Well off kids tend to do better in school. Also schools that have well off kids tend to have more resources (as schools are usually funded by property taxes etc) and well off parents are more likely to have time to volunteer to help out at the schools. Its honestly a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. Im not for abolishing private schools but honestly plenty of public schools would get immediately better if the private option didnt exist. Its not the only problem, far from it, but its part of it.",019d65de-738c-4d06-b156-937bb3696c74
+"A graphic description of rape may not be considered a ""little dose"" of a topic that a recovering rape victim might find pertinent. Yes, if you have any interest in healing fully, then at some point you will have to expose yourself to these triggers and work through them. Willing exposure is going to be conducive to healing, but repeated exposures that you are not prepared for or have no plan for managing are not going to be that conducive to healing. It's the difference between being unexpectedly pushed off a ledge while having no idea how to tuck and roll, versus being taught and having practiced how to tuck and roll. With the former, you're just slamming to the ground every time but you MAY get lucky one day and discover how to tuck and roll on your own. With the latter, you're equipped to handle sudden pushes to the point where you won't need to be warned beforehand.",86c860b3-de1c-436d-9d11-b988b17de4e1
+"I completely agree with you. my entire point is that once you are considered a legal adult by the United States government, you should be able to make any of these decisions by yourself. The government has two options in my opinion: lower the age of smoking and drinking to 18, or raise the age of a legal adult to the age of 21. once you are a legal adult, you should not be restricted on the choices you make. At least, not the choices that other people will be allowed to make once they are older. This law just shows that society does not think that 18 year olds are responsible enough to drink. But they are responsible enough to join the military? Seriously? The government and society needs to make up their mind. you are either sending kids to war, or you are not allowing full grown adults to make their own decisions. That is where we are at right now.",9b8944bc-26a3-4491-aee7-3f6eff95e7b0
+"> Except critics often dislike something because they don't understand it or refuse to. Godzilla was hated by critics for being a monster fighty movie, they missed the whole point of it. I don't think that's terribly fair. The critics disliked Godzilla not because it was a monster fight movie, but because it was a BAD monster fight movie. Take a look at Pacific Rim for context. Giant robots fighting monsters. Well received and reviewed by critics and the audience alike. It was because it was a good monster fighty movie. Godzilla wasn't. Pointing out the difference is their job.",2fd45bfd-ddca-4470-97ff-df37da10746f
+"I don’t understand this logic. It would be sound to say something like “if you, as an adult, have gotten into 3+ car accidents, you should try and improve your driving skills or Consider not driving.” That make sense sure. But with rape? No I don’t really get it at all. Rape is caused only by those sick enough in the fucking head to do it, no one else. You can’t blame the victim for being “rapeable”, it just doesn’t make sense. Society knows rape is wrong and sound people know not to do it. But rape happens due to those that have a strange distortion of reality. Maybe someone does portray as an easy target for whatever reasons, but that doesn’t mean they are to blame at all.",652e2fea-fe57-4b33-ac82-3f975c0f7e31
+"Also the fact that Hermione in the story receives the insult 'mudblood' makes me think that she would be the chosen target as anti racist publicity (let's say :P) because there's discrimination for what she inherently is, much like racism. I don't have a problem with that and there's really no reason to not choose a black actress, unlike other characters from other stories where there's implicit geographical and historical evidence to respect. But you can say that she doesn't look canon enough for you (book covers and films) just don't go watch it if you don't like it. I'm aware JKR came out about this but that doesn't change my Harry Potter experience. In my imagination Hermione is and will always be white.",12b46e6f-0f2d-4f64-94b3-7b5350c651e0
+">You only wash your sheets 5x a year!?!?!? I feel like this is a gender thing. Most girls I know wash their sheets about 10x as much as most guys I know. >I play sports about 4x a week. In those instances I take two showers that day. >It means my hair is wet and I have to take extra time styling it. It means that my body is damp and clothes are more difficult to put on. It means that any lotion I put on is getting all over my clothes. Steams up my mirror and makes my bathroom all humid causing makeup application difficulties. Also a gender thing. Showering in the morning adds at most ten minutes to my time i.e. whatever the length of the shower + drying off time is. I don't have hair, use lotion, or apply makeup. >I'm just as clean then as I would be later in the afternoon. Also a gender thing. As a guy, I wake up sweaty. I would feel down right gross not to shower insofar as there would be a layer of stickiness all over. Overall, not showering in the morning leaves me hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and overall more groggy. Morning shower is far superior.",5bc6e4ca-7107-4a3c-9e5c-0bb6febe95bc
+"Who says it needs morning or night? I wake up and the first thing I do is take an ice cold shower - gets me alert and ready for the day, and I feel clean and refreshed. Among the last things I do before bed is take a warm shower, it calms me down and gets me relaxed and ready for bed. Those two showers, along with their respective routines, book end my days. If I sweat a bunch, I take another shower in between. Sometimes, if I’m overwhelmed, I take a brief shower mid-day to clear my thoughts. A hundred years ago, a bath was relatively rare. I take advantage of modern technology/plumbing and try not to take for granted that a hot bath centuries ago would have been something only royalty or rich could afford. Now I can adjust the temperature at my whim? And take 5 a day if I want? I live like a king.",ed394773-4f96-403a-bcb4-39118015a467
+Ok I have a question for you. When a tourist is in another country and locals tell them not to go to a certain area at night and they go anyway and get robbed is it just the robbers fault they got robbed? Obviously they didn't deserve to be robbed but it feels like rape is the same way. You don't deserve to be raped but if you have bad judgement of character and hang around with shitty people you might increase your chances of being raped. Now the tourist could get robbed anywhere for no reason and they still don't deserve it and didn't ask for it. Isn't it also like defensive driving? If you get slammed into at an intersection because you refused to slowdown because you had the right of way did you deserve to get hit? Of course not. And it isn't your fault. But maybe you could have driven defensively and reduced your chances. It just feels like we deny this reality of risk aversion for women and rape for well intentioned ideological reasons.,deed4757-19de-46c2-af56-78d0c2fb5805
+"> From what I understand, if the rich can keep them (legally) then it's voluntary, and if it's not, the rich can't keep them either (legally) Absolutely not, take old black codes as an example - if any black was found with a gun they were to be hanged in public. However any rich white man could own them. Getting hanged was not a voluntary experience > My country doesn't allow civilian firearms, so please be patient if I misunderstand That is only the case in North Korea and Venezuela, your country allows for the rich to legally own firearms",f5dc2207-2216-48d1-8827-75deb269ba5e
+"I'm in the U.S. The artist I get tattooed by is pretty decent with it but the shop is also owned by a family friend so I know how much they charge. They do a $75 deposit on the appointment which covers up to half an hour (except for the owner of the shop, that would cover like 15 min or something) and then it's $75 per 30 min after that, so $150 an hour. But I want work from other artists, but have no reference point of how much they're gonna charge since I've only ever gone to one guy.",52902e6d-c151-4729-b01d-9a80aa592e6e
+"Fair enough, a ""good"" rewind can mean a lot of things. I agree with you about how the diversity of content being created and featured in the old style rewinds can be good to see, and for some that's a ""good"" rewind. This year's one was certainly different and it will be interesting to see what happens next year. From what I've seen in the comments/creators videos discussing rrwind, people are calling this years one boring or YouTube lazy for doing it in a top 10 list style. I think it was a little boring, but maybe that's ok for a rewind that shows what YouTube is objectively. I feel like my view has changed, as my title was about them never being able to make a ""good"" rewind, which you've made me realize is quite subjective. I still think they can't make what I originally thought of as a good rewind, but I think your comment helps me see that a rewind that features a range of content can also be ""good"".",0b212f8f-a8c5-47ad-9181-39565e1410ad
+"People are people, and genocide is genocide. And while the motivations of Nazi Germany and china are different, I say the are morally equivalent. Also eughers aren't really Chinese, neither are Tibetans, so you could classify those are foreign occupations and invasion's. And while china isnt fueled by ideology, its fueled by fascist mentality in the way of increasing influence and suppressing the people. On your point about opposing china, your 100% correct. They have huge leverage as a superpower and war is off the table. The reason why I am opposed to the trade war is because it has hurt us more than them. We should ally with the EU, maybe even forming an economic pact, and then appose china in the UN. If need be, putting sanctions and restrictions. And yes, china is very similar to the USSR. But I guess that in practice, they are different, just not morally. Δ",c55f513f-8f9a-49a8-8b3a-62726a000e3b
+"The median salary for a surgeon in the US is $270,305 source In the UK it is £75,182 source This is the result of a quick Google search so do not take it for gospel. The UK figure is certainly more reasonable than the US one. (Assuming the figures to be accurate) No one needs that amount of money, I understand it is a difficult job but even still there is no morally justifiable reason why they earn so much why others struggle. This is not necessarily the fault of the surgeon it is the fault of the people that pay others so little. The median salary of a janitor in the UK is £19,753 source Whilst in the US it is $26,032 source I would argue that this is not a reasonable living wage and it's not morally justifiable that the people that pay surgeons so much pay them so little",71f2f884-b404-4f9b-a87e-98b19b41c80f
+"It's an aside I know, but why do you say ocean acidification is a worse problem? To my mind, the big issue with global warming isn't the worsening floods, droughts, famines and hurricanes etc. themselves, though clearly on a human level that is tragic enough, the bigger issue is the geopolitical fallout that will result - whether that be wars, mass migration of tens or even hundreds of millions, and the social revolt that will result. If Europe and the US can't cope with the relative trickle of light and dark brown migrants that occurs right now, what's gonna happen when the flow increases ten or a hundred-fold? Expect full-on fascism to ensue I reckon, with terrorist blowback perhaps increasing ten or a hundred-fold also. Compared to all that, the loss of coral reefs etc. seems somewhat minor.",c4f2da6f-5e6e-4229-ab07-eb98a46c920d
+"Since the OP didn't seem to clearly answer this, I will. The heavy split for Clinton over Sanders comes down to three main factors in my mind. The first is that the Black Democratic electorate is older than the white Democratic electorate. Old white people mostly vote Republican. Older voters in general were more likely to vote for Clinton because they don't have college debt to be forgiven, already have Medicare, and get almost all of their news from establishment television which had a heavy pro-Clinton bias. The second factor is that Black voters especially in the South are more susceptible to the influence of the establishment. Black churches serve as a major source to organize voting. These churches are established organizations which can be influenced over time by establishment politicians like the Clintons. When people talk about whether a candidate has ties to the Black community, it is really just a euphemism for whether they can get the explicit support of leading organizers within Black churches. The third factor is that Black voters in the South are understandably more concerned about electability than white voters. They are more likely to be harmed by Republican control. Since, Clinton's main argument against Bernie constantly pushed by the media was that she was more electable(which turned out to be laughably untrue) she did better with the voters more concerned with electability. So Black voters are older on average, more susceptible to influence by their establishment(Black churches and organizers within them), and are more interested in the main argument which establishment candidates push(the claim that they are electable). They aren't members of the establishment, but they are more vulnerable to its pressure. They also aren't particularly ignorant at least not compared to old white Democratic voters who are closely tied to establishment institutions and are heavily concerned about electability.",19778a5c-d875-48d5-856e-a125e4384f61
+"Because by making it illegal the government is meddling in people's lives unnecessarily (imo) and preventing people from having the best death possible. Do you really think that decapitation by train or starvation are as good as inhaling an inert gas? Not only that making it legal could, in some cases, delay a person's death. Rather than jumping off of a bridge to an uncertain future (possibly ending up paralysed or in a coma) they might go through the legal (and in the future culturally more acceptable) route of legal euthanasia. Ultimately yes you could do it anyway but I think that the right to die should be considered a human right. Death should be something which is given lots of consideration with support and some attempt at treatment from doctors. As is you could simply never mention that you were suicidal until the last minute. Often this is not the case but so often people say that there were very few signs or seemingly none at all.",dc373de8-0c06-481b-98de-6de270606264
+I live in michigan and most shops charge by hour. Some do a cost up front as well. In small cities you can find great artists who charge about half or a third of what I see in large cities or on tv shows. But every time I've been with friends or got mine. Prices were simple enough. Sure if you get someth iij ng complex it is hard to tell exactly the time. But I've had plenty of friends with sleeves say they can do up to 600 today and the artist works up to 600 and then they came back next week to finish it or continue the work.,0ba7e6f7-85c2-4667-98c4-04ea7dfaa487
+"I can’t answer how to measure art. But for example if I went on an art selling section of a website, and tried to sell my piss canvas, no one would probably buy it because the general consensus of people would be like “yeah that’s not art” no matter how much I love that painting. The closest answer I have is this, art is what the majority of people agree on what is art or not. Music for example, if I played one note on a piano, technically it’s still “music” but why would anyone call that music? No one would pay to come to see me play one note. They’d come to hear actual songs.",6c5f7dd6-3a0a-4e82-8b45-37bf9707da5e
+"Better versions of public services only exist because of economic incentives bringing returns to entrepreneurship. I would argue that private schools are only incentivised in the UK because the state sector is often such a bad prospect that parents are willing to spend money on their education. If the state sector was elevated and made better, the parents wouldn’t be incentivised to pay, and private schools would wither away. Similarly, if the state sector is good enough, in a utopian world people also would not have to pay for private tutors, as the issues that make people need to supplement education would not exist. Inequality will always exist, but we can lessen it through equality of opportunity which I do not believe is enhanced by having a free and premium tiered education system.",dcd88bff-c95b-4772-abc6-3d4404af5b1a
+"Critics aren't hard to please. Just as the audiences and media they interact with, critics are predictable. The problem is there is a disconnect. The boxes that tick it for a critic seem to not line up with the boxes that tick it for an audience member. Now, since it it a profession, a critic should have a great deal more knowledge and understanding of a piece of media than an average audience member. However, I've just binged a bunch of reviews, positive and negative, of a bunch of films from the past few years, ones I've liked and disliked. It was rare that I got the impression that most of the critics had more knowledge or understanding than the layman. If they did, they certainly didn't convey it in the text. Maybe I just got unlucky in my arbitrary selection, but I was supremely dissatisfied with what I got in the majority of them. I felt like I got just as much nuance from arbitrary user reviews, sometimes more.",87c919a6-265b-4cfe-85a0-f92654399922
+"I only focus on the negative aspect of criticism because that is the part relevant to my view. Ie that people shouldn't be so upset about said negativity. of course a reviewer should start off neutral, that doesn't mean they aren't harder to please. If i have spent my life dedicated to a form of media, immersed myself in the best examples of it i can find, talked endlessly about them ect, then I will be harder to impress than someone who hasn't, generally speaking. The same could be said of sports commentators, restaurant workers ect. I am not saying that critics should go into a review with an attitude of assumed negativity at all. I'm just saying that it should not surprise anyone that committed people set higher bars when it comes to things they are committed to. Commitment and experience in a field generally makes you more discerning when it comes to testing the quality of works in that field(by classical standards). I completely agree that reviewers should finish viewing the entire work. I said that up top. that wasn't part of my argument it was just background on how i got here. Other threads were taking that discussion about reasonable gripes and making it about reviewers in general being out of touch and shitty for not liking something. thats the part i wrote my post about",659c8f5e-f48e-4687-a371-7cd5fdcde0ed
+"This isn't my point of view, but rather one that can give us a new perspective on this issue. To put it simply and crudely, the theory is that through creating patents and competing for a profit, more money gets placed towards creating new technologies to out do competitors. The fight between a nationalized service and a privatized service has gone on for a long time. Often nationalized services don't have enough taxpayer dollars to keep up a fair standard for Healthcare. For example, I believe it is Japan that fully educated doctors only receive a fraction of a wage of most other jobs, even though they had to train in universities for years to earn a Med Degree. If doctors don't have the incentive to get paid, then why become a doctor? Therefore some countries are having trouble finding enough doctors to keep up with medical research in their own right. Meanwhile, the US is finding great freedom coming in from certain laissez-faire style characteristics, gaining grants to do research and have enough incentives for people to join the pharmaceutical race to do it. In many ways the US is running the world's medical industry. They are leading class in many key technologies in which innovate the rest of the world.",e1d81b5e-8de1-429e-a06a-daa3fcdf1367
+"These are really good points, and I didn't realize just how much innovation USA is responsible for. I don't understand the point that ""America ends up footing most of the bill for the world"". The entire industry is profit driven, and no research is started, without a risk-benefit analysis. America is therefore very good at R&D when it comes to profitable drugs, and it's very good at profiting on the final product. It's not good at creating low prices for the patients, and it is not ""footing most of the bill for the world"". I think there's something I'm not getting, if so please CMW.",a33e6681-1893-4f54-97c0-af4a5c8a2ecf
+"fair enough to counter the idea that the current private pharma model in the US ""hinders"" public scientific development; I should have said ""hinders scientific development in comparison to a profit-free, completely subsidized pharmaceutical research group."" Again, isn't the motivation to develop novel therapies to potentially-life threatening diseases (let alone those that reduce quality of life significantly) an inherent motivation for anyone capable of doing so? I mean, so many diseases can potentially affect people of all different walks of life. Isn't life better for everyone knowing that the most effective treatments possible exist, even if Pharma Company XYZ didn't score $50B making it? And we all knew this was coming: Isn't the compassion for mankind affected by life-altering medical conditions enough to drive the sharpest research we can muster? Practically everyone has been quite sick at one point in their lives. Isn't sickness and instinctually relatable sympathy to hold?",f88450e0-d6f4-46d0-8e4e-170db53ce2a2
+"How does consent work? Obviously a prostitute should be able to refuse a customer, but then they don't get paid. If someone is reliant on this job for rent/bills, then you have a case where someone can tell them 'you either have sex with me, or you can't eat/will be homeless/etc'. If you run a brothel, can you threaten to fire someone or not pay them if they refuse a customer? If yes, how is that not coerced sexual assault, and if no, what's stopping random women from signing up with the brothel and then refusing to have sex but demanding payment?",d6692248-6def-4f38-8742-67e288ea12cb
+"As per your first paragraph; exactly. America is a lot safer, and inter-connected than the countries I've seen brought up. I dont see a problem with only financially stable people being able to afford them, just because it is available for purchase doesnt mean everyone should go out and get one. I think your second argument is completely baseless. I don't think people would stop having meaningful relationships with each other, just because they had a stressful workday and want to unwind by having sex. If anything, I feel people would be nicer to each other. No one angry because they cant get laid, no one who feels left out.",c1fcbbbf-af8c-4aaa-9c5e-84abb8ba693a
+"First, I think showing people race is a social construct might cure racism in some instances. Ask someone why they don't like black people. And they'll probably say blacks are stupid or more violent or whatever, but the key is that none of that's genetic, which is the reason racism has never made any sense. But right here there will be people who don't believe there aren't inferior races based off genetics. These people believe that in the US black people commit more crime because of their genes specificly. So I want to cmv by showing you that if you can cmv people on what racism is, you'll convince a lot of them that racism itself is stupid. And, because you brought up the Spanyards. The Incan king's original plan was to kill the men and breed the horses. The spanish were thousands of years more advanced, but if that had been reversed we'd have been watching the same thing in reverse.",1855d739-1bf8-4cdb-868b-0b6c10410de9
+"While not OP I fail to see how you can distinguish racists hate for skin colour and they 'culture' you are suggesting it represents. The point being that if a racist sees a black person and assumes he is from a culture he dislikes and thus hates that person, then it's 100% the skin colour that is causes his hate, the rest is him trying to justify it. Sure his hate may has some sort of logical reasons to do with culture in his own mind that seems twisted to most others, but that's not enough to shrug off the fact he hates black people because they are black. This also gives weight to the racists incorrect claim that because they have a black friend they cannot be racist and they only hate the blacks for their 'culture' or whatever racist and discriminatory nonsense they bring up to back up their views.",8bc6e281-fd0e-417f-868e-a4456271867e
+"Race definitely does not imply culture. There is no one culture every Black person has worldwide or every White person has worldwide. Race might imply culture solely on a national level, but even that has more to do with ethnicity than race. Immigrants of the same race as the majority but a different background won't share the same culture. &#x200B; Most openly racist people (I'm not sure about covert racists) do hate Black people and others because of their inherent traits; not just skin color or appearance alone (although they do think other races are very ugly) but more on perceived genetic and often mental differences that make them inferior. If it was truly about culture, than non-whites who approve of White culture (derided as ""uncle Toms"") or are raised by White parents would be fully accepted by White nationalists or supremacists. This literally never happens. It would also mean that White people who fully rejected White culture and worship another culture instead (derided as ""Wiggers"" or ""Weeaboos"") would be seen as completely non-white. This happens slightly more frequently, but White nationalists/supremacists would still prefer a racially White person who acts Black than they would a racially Black person who acts White because the White person can change their behavior but race is static. Their arguments are biological, not cultural and they in fact argue that culture comes from genetics. &#x200B; So yeah, race has nothing to do with culture. Ethnicity has a relationship with culture, but racists care about race and racial attributes, not about ethnic culture.",ce72252b-b67f-4fec-bd1c-7ea1e15635cb
+"Reparations aren't racist, because they aren't about race. Reparations are about the USA government giving money to make amends for wrongdoing the USA has done to some citizens. The USA paid reparations to the victims of the Internment Camps during WW2. And the USA has many times paid out reparations for breaking treaties with sovereign nations that exist withing the borders of the USA. And a lot of people believe that the USA should pay reparations to the victims of legalized slavery for almost 100 years. Now it is true that in all those instances only one racial group is being paid reparations each time. The Japanese-Americans for Internment. The Native Americans for broken treaties and stolen lands. And the African Americans for slavery. But the reason for that is because the USA government was racist and that is why they committed crimes against those racial groups. Making amends for the racist wrongdoing isn't itself racists.",9d83f64a-480d-457f-986d-f1479e1d232c
+">There are tons of poor people in the world and skin colour has nothing to do with it This is blatantly false. Many African Americans today and in the past have been denied opportunity BECAUSE of their skin color. This has happened for generations all the way back to slavery, systematically keeping many African Americans in poverty. >Nearly every race or religion has been persecuted someone where in the world, does this mean I can start claiming reparations from France for my long lost descendant who was killed by the French in 1066? So? ""but I suffered too"" does not dismiss the suffering of others. This is about reparations for people who experience oppression and adversity today in America as a result of slavery. Saying ""everybody has been oppressed"" is a strawman and often turns into a slippery slope, it's unproductive and disingenuous.",0a1cd6c5-5c28-40b5-8cfa-a7348d9c58b8
+"I'll counter that with the 5th Epistle of James 5 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. 2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. 3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. 4 Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. 5 Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. 6 Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.",bdab4997-8e3c-4be2-8e16-7b12c5e443e2
+"This ""eye of the needle"" bullshit was made up way after the Bible was written, to justify the rich being rich. But it's bullshit. It's more of that ""interpretation"" stuff I am not interested in. ""eye of a needle"" is not ""eye of the needle"". So yeah, I've heard this argument before and if it's not in the Bible, it's bullshit, made up stuff, by preachers who want the rich man's money. It's not in the bible. Just like ""God helps those who help themselves"" is not in the Bible. Just more made up bullshit. Jesus was not talking in metaphors.",99ae5173-f2de-42bd-bdd6-f7852dce88a7
+"This argument can be raised against every manner of rule. Naturally the prohibition on various drugs only affects those that are interested in using them. At that point one can argue that the prohibition of theft is unfair against the poor. I also don't really get the need for this argument though; in OP's case there are de jure different rules for male and female students with each a different whitelist—they don't even get to face the same rules. I also think in discussions about discrimination that individuals need to draw a distinction between ""discrimination"" and ""bullshit rule""; requiring all to use the urinal or all to come in class doing a handstand isn't discrimination; it's just a bullshit rule; in the same way that a rule requiring that all students have black hair—dyed or otherwise—is just a bullshit rule",0b4d1e39-4bf0-439d-83d3-ff06b16bc960
+">if a single standard for determining what is and is not acceptable clothing ends up impacting one gender far more than the other, that is still unfair. How is that unfair? For example, consider that testosterone causes aggression, and that men produce much more testosterone than women. Is it sexist to make violence illegal because men are predisposed to violence? >would you describe being able to see shoulders are revealing? That doesn't seem relevant. The point is that the standards (whether reasonable or not) are not sexist. Edit: Revealing is a relative term. Having visible shoulders is revealing compared to not showing your shoulders.",a1e96b2a-af50-4b74-aabe-3c8e516dfc81
+">This means that the Chinese Room can simulate any physical system without ever creating consciousness, by using any other physical substrate for processing. Isn't this one of the objections to the Chinese Room? That instead of just a set of rules, the program simulated the entire brain of a Chinese speaker, including the operation of every individual neuron. Or even, if we took an artificial neuron, and connected them up in such a way to simulate the brain physically. Why would we say that our artificial simulated brain doesn't give rise to consciousness, but our biological brains do?",0a437a2f-7ccb-4bad-bd3f-9c6095d6db62
+"If you actually extend this premises further you get to a interesting conclusion. For a perfect simulation to occur of an atomic explosion, every aspect of the universe must be stimulated. This directly raise the time-compexity of the simulation to unfathomable levels. Even if we had a planetary sized computer packed into the every single atom in the universe, this simulation still wouldn't even be close to fully emulating even a simple atomic explosion. I would go as far to argue that only way perfect simulation could occur is within a parallel copy of the universe. By proxy in this manner, the universe is effectively the most efficient solution to a simulation of itself, thus this thought experiment is even theoretically impossible within it's own constraints.",29fa3cf0-9847-4ec5-ac67-026b60e9cf8f
+"That's what the Chinese Room argument is intended to accomplish, and it does that extremely well. It's such a solid counter argument because Searle doesn't limit the hypothetical to just current computers or even practical computers. He imagines a logically consistent computer that's unconstrained by any resource limits. It's such a strong argument that not only does it accomplish its intended goal, but it's also capable of proving other things as well. One of those other things seems to be that consciousness has to be a property of matter. It's like if you wanted to prove that Egyptians didn't build the pyramids, but you created such a strong case that you actually ended up proving the pyramids weren't created by any animals on Earth. You intended to disprove one thing, but actually created such a strong argument that it proves additional things as well.",a47e0988-7471-4b74-adb1-45dc4a438aab
+">Part of the reason society has been male dominated is because men value sex and sex appeal No, sex appeal is completely separate. We are all animals that like to have sex. The issue is that men can devalue or ignore literally everything except sex appeal. Sex appeal has really nothing to do with feminism. >A good example of Weinstein, he used his position of power to trade sex for giving people roles. When they refused he would punish them. If a person chooses to use their body for sex work, that is their choice. They have agency to do what they want. Your Weinstein example is not that at all. It is about women NOT having agency. >reinforce the viewpoint that sex can be traded for material or economic gain. Trading sex is not unique to women. Men can do the same thing. Even objectification can be done by either sex. Objectification is bad either way. As it stands currently, women are far more objectified than men which is the problem. Objectification makes all other traits irrelevant and a persons worth is reduced to one aspect another person finds important not themselves. If person A objectifies a person B because they are attracted to them, that is not the the person B's fault. That is person A doing something shitty that they should address. Sorry for the gibberish. Tl:dr, sex appeal =/ objectification.",823eebbc-e1f6-4ce5-92f2-a3f055154f10
+> I would argue that it's the Johns (people buying sex) that are creating a market and a demand for sex workers. & >they might be destitute and poor to the point where prostitution is the only thing keeping them off the street. This contradict each other a little. From the latter it is clear that it isn't johns or the existence of the market's fault it is the material conditions of poor and marginalised women. If sex workers didn't need the money to alleviate their material conditions then it doesn't matter how many johns there are the coercive force isn't there anymore,b6a40522-02f1-4f75-8a6c-322a7e79758d
+"> How is the trade of sex for material or economic gain inherently helping males maintain a position of power over women? Because if you normalize that women trading sex for economic or material gain, men will use that normalization of the culture to further their power. Remember economic or material gain could mean sleeping with your boss for a promotion or sleeping with someone for a trip to some exotic place. > As it stands, your argument would also indict women who work as models, as baristas, as barmaids, as nurses, etc. Why is sex work being singled out? Nope. Not all models are selling sex appeal. Baristas don't sell sex appeal. Not all barmaids do, but for example the bottle service girls who wear skimpy clothing to get a better tip absolutely do against feminism. Nurses don't sell sex appeal either so I don't see how that is relevant.",6bc7cc93-345c-4eec-b826-644cf0788796
+"It's incorrect to say that ""socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it"" because there are currently-existing societies that are socialist, and they're not economically paralyzed. Defining ""economic collapse"" is more subjective. But I think it's defensible to say, those societies are reasonably economically stable, and so ""collapse"" is not really appropriate, but I agree that those societies don't have a level of wealth comparable to the US or a European nation. But still, if the claim only counts for a European standard then the statement should be qualified as such.",6c68a18e-fa68-471a-b56b-3181533612ff
+"I always hate these absolutist debates between capitalism and socialism. There has never been an organized society that was a pure example of either. Both would be absolute nightmares. There needs to be a sub set aside where silly hardcore Marxists and anarchocapitalists yell at each other over who's thought experiment is better. Successful capitalism requires free markets. You need outside regulation to keep markets free-ish. If you don't, companies race towards monopoly and kill the free market. Successful Marxism/collectivism/socialism requires enough wealth and productivity to support the populace. So far, nobody has figured out how to sustain productivity without having disparate reward for disparate contribution. There are examples of systems leaning really far to each side, USSR and 1920s US, but nobody should be cheerleading them as aspirational goals that just didn't go far enough.",52f6003c-5033-4d56-b344-66fcad1fd786
+"> This is what's known as a ""secundum quid"" fallacy Well, socialism killed millions of people, but it would be a logical fallacy to assume it will keep killing millions of people in the future. So why not give it another try eh? In the same vein of logical fallacies, maybe national socialism maybe due for another try, eh? What could possibly go wrong? > historical materialism Now that is a logical fallacy, if I ever saw one. This one literally said that the deductive logical methods of Aristotle were 'too old' and we need the dialectic process to replace them.",9f3234c5-7216-4fba-94f8-ed4799be371c
+"There are many aspects of both the prequel trilogy and the sequel trilogy that are like objectively bad. Prequel trilogies were goofy, there was some bad acting, and pacing was terrible. The sequel trilogy and spinoffs are just inconsistent in my mind. Some are good but some are bad. And again, TLJ was objectively bad from a pacing standpoint and also, again, seemed to basically shit all over the plot, story, and characters established in TFA. I honestly can't understand how it got approved. Maybe in a vacuum it could be fine but it just didn't flow or build on TFA like Empire did with a New Hope. I think maybe you have a point on TFA, studios figured out the kind of stuff that sells tickets (safe, nostalgic) and so in that sense the fans got what they deserved. The same people complaining about TFA are probably the same ones complaining about the state of hollywood in general, the one that keeps releasing remakes and cash cows and lacking in originality and trying to appeal to kids and China. I'm not sure it's fair to say we deserve that. People complained about TLJ cuz it was just bad and didn't make sense. I haven't seen ROS yet but it's kind of inevitable that it was going to struggle to reconcile the two others. I don't know if you can blame the fans on that one.",5e39f96b-c8e6-4449-8567-30aca29c4ee5
+"If you think the problem with the sequels is progressive political messaging rather than a terrible plot and a complete disrespect for the themes, stories, imagery and vision that made Star Wars great, and for internal consistency, you’ve got a problem. The biggest element of”progressive political messaging” is that the lead character is a woman. That’s trivial and in now way inherently undermines Star Wars. Nor does having a black guy in it, cause we’ve already had that, Lando. As for the oppressed rising up to fight a racist Empire, that’s the Rebellion in a nutshell, the EU makes it very clear early on that the empire is explicitly specieist.",eb3f7f82-ed84-46af-bba1-33460756d3b7
+">So your talking about 1 film out of 10 and blaming them all? What? Mary Sue controversy was related to TFA, not TLJ. I'm talking about the reactions both of them got, although what TLJ got was much, much stronger. >The prequel did not break the fan base like the one film. Hmm, not sure. First, I think many people look at those movies today with rose-colored glasses, and forget how hated they were during their time. Secondly, prequels didn't exist in the era of social media. If they had, I think the reaction to them would have been stronger, with the most obnoxious fans getting a platform to express their displeasure. >But it wasn't just the movie it was what happened in the background if you didn't like the move you were a racist or sexist or. Not sure what you mean here.",247d07e1-b179-4f9a-96e3-f9593f9e9d95
+"With stocks, you buy into a company knowing that that company wants earn you as much money as possible. The company will invest in factories, materials, workers etc. to try and generate profit. This is not the goal of taxes. The government does not try to give the most money to people who paid the most taxes, they produce public goods. Public goods are things like roads, police, parks, etc. They do not generate profit, and their services are available to anyone. With stocks, the person who invests the most receives the most benefit. Companies give me more money than my neighbor because I have paid more. With taxes, that is not the case. My house and my neighbors house is equally protested by police and fire departments, equally have access to the roads, equally have trash services, even though I pay more in taxes.",8c8b3eb0-f982-487c-bc84-ce859fadfff2
+"OP needs to read this comment over and over again until he finally gets it. I’d add this example. Work/education are good for people and community and helps in overall development. Leisure also is good for people’s overall development. There is a balance. OP is making the mistake to say that Work and Leisure are more or less the same concept because they both are required to live a balance life. But work and leisure aren’t the same concept, or same thing. They have a ying/yang relationship requiring balance. Taxes and stock ownership aren’t the same concept in the same way work and leisure aren’t the same concept. Yes a community might need both for great overall development, but to say they are the same thing only confuses and obfuscates the issue.",3948ab42-79de-41a1-95c7-a8dc817cedb5
+"I think you're misunderstanding how welfare can make money. Let's say Bill Gates puts a million dollars into food stamps. And that money will feed about 7,000 people for a month. Let's say half of those people get out of poverty (so 3500). They find jobs maybe get an education but they become self-sustaining. Then they go out and buy products from Bill Gates. Let's say 3000 of those people spend about $1000 on Microsoft over the next 10 years. Bill Gates just made $3 mil that he would not have otherwise made. Which is an $2mil increase. That's a pretty good return on investment. People tend to forget how taxes can be a net benefit for taxpayers. Try running a business with a war on your doorstep or without roads. But it's not a check in the mail so people tend to forget.",37a1d6c8-cc44-434f-9b29-5c548dc3a729
+"As someone else else said, you don't want to overquote and scare them off, or underquote and end up having to charge more and pissing them off. Only giving a ballpark figure isn't unprofessional, no matter how good you are it can be really hard to know how long it's going to take. You can never be 100% sure what'll work until you sketch it, so you don't know what it'll look like until you get it on paper, therefore won't know how long it'll take. Everyone's skin is different, some soaks up the ink and some takes a bit more effort. Some people move around a lot so you have to go slower, some people want to take a lot of breaks so it takes longer. There's a lot of factors that go into this, that's why we give rough estimates and not exact quotes.",6f37af6c-9191-41d6-bef0-cf198a4e1c19
+"Teachers are paid 24k -£40k depending on location and experience A nurse is £21k-£35k depending on location and experience A nurse trains for a comparably similar time to a teacher, has a high level of stress and responsibility but work a metric fuck ton more hours They dont get the opportunity to take their work home like teachers do or do 20% of the year from home or even doing nothing (depending on the teacher ofc) Teachers can move up to management without additional qualifications -nurses cannot - some also have to work the night shift or the late shift - teachers dont So in comparison to other public sector jobs I would say that they are paid a fair amount for what realistically should be a pretty straight forward job if the goal posts stopped being moved and all the totally redundant paperwork wasnt required",311cdbcf-22f3-475e-8d88-106adaa4a863
+"> Well the argument can be made that since most teachers are paid by the state they get the ""correct"" amount of money that society thinks they are worth. To go further, because teacher salaries are not discovered as prices in a free market system, and are instead are set by the government, which obtains the money to pay teachers through compulsory taxes, we cannot say if teachers are overpaid or underpaid. Normally, if you think you're underpaid, you have to demonstrate your value to your current employer to receive a raise, or get another company to believe you're worth it and offer you a better job. Teachers don't have to appeal to the people (customers) they ostensibly work for (teachers/kids); they just have to ask the government, who has different incentives than the customers.",11ffa22d-65fb-4baa-8b40-29dc7468c16a
+They get paid slightly above salary but the amount of stress pressure and hassle they have to deal with just makes other private sector jobs that much more appealing. Teachers will often work more hours than are contracted because they want the kids to do well and for all they do I think they should be paid more. Just looking at the data you might think teachers don't have it that bad but to plan a weeks worth of lessons do a weeks worth of marking make sure every lesson is engaging and control a class sometimes doing dinner duties and detention duties weekly too the job can get pretty tough for the pay grade I think. There are some bursaries in place for aspiring teachers that are pretty nice but this doesn't change the salary in the long run,72c0160b-d5d6-4be3-a5fa-d242d9859e4d
+"I work in Canada now. When you say universities are slowly introducing ""teaching streams"", I have a feeling you specifically mean U.S. universities? I think that European and Canadian schools have had ""teaching-stream"" tenure positions for a good long while. In Canada, I think they are typically called lecturers and are still tenure-track faculty. Since they still have a PhD, they can sit on graduate committees and help research/grant, but they don't supervise/create research labs of their own (to my knowledge). In fact, if they were to do research they would best be rewarded (for the purposes of tenure) if it were on the science of teaching and learning rather than their original discipline (e.g., applied science or mathematics).",65a0449b-c16b-4663-a619-fb34bd2afa21
+"A lot of these factors are for sure influencing my experience especially point number 2 but what I don’t agree with is point number 4. 5 different classes is a lot to prep for but I have to do the exact same thing with 5 classes, the only differences are you already know the information and you need to teach me. On top of my 5 classes I also work 15 hours a week and I’m involved in a social fraternity on campus. I’m not saying teachers aren’t busy but saying that teachers are just sometimes too busy and too tired to bring their “A game” sounds like a slap in the face to students. If I’m too tired or too busy to bring my “A-game” one time I could screw my grades up and at this point in my college career that really matters. (This did happen to me this semester in Finance so I can’t graduate on time now)",a0be0f0a-c861-4dff-acdf-938f055272ce
+"Poor and/or young voters make a lot of noise (and you see this especially on a places like Reddit and social media, which are predominantly young), but ultimately their value to politicians for the purpose of getting them elected is suspect. Young people make a lot of noise, but then consistently show up to the polls in far lower numbers than older voters. Campaigns cost money, and poor people have significantly less money to contribute than wealthy people do. You have to look at it from a Utilitarian point of view as a Politician: you might have grandiose ideas about how to help poor and young people, but if you don't actually get elected, it doesn't matter. So your focus has to be on appealing to those who do get you elected.",48b87223-66a7-43e4-9099-0b0d02ac2055
+The paradigms you are presenting are being challenged. There has been a significant uptick in young voter participation from the 2014 to 2018 midterms following Sanders 2016 campaign. . AOC and her squad fellows were elected by grassroots support. AOC is the largest fundraiser for her personal campaign of the 200+ Dems in the House. Pelosi is the big breadwinner do the DCCC. Sanders and Warren are the two biggest fundraisers in the D primary on the strength of small grassroots donations. Sanders has sent a record for most money raised at this point in a campaign on an $18 average donation. Supporters have demonstrated some ability to match funding for candidates who eschew special interest donors and big ticket fundraisers.,da3f4ef0-e627-406e-b035-e2581cfcefb1
+"Peoples views on forward progress are very different. The Democratic party might fit your views of forward progress but few of their views on forward progress and my views on forward progress align so in my view, the Democratic Party isnt the party that is progressing America forward. For instance, almost everyone can agree that the US has issues with its healthcare system. Your views are to make it a public utility and therefore free at purchase. I dont think it should be a public utility and free at purchase because I've seen how other universal systems have failed people close to me get the treatment they require while the private system has allowed them to access those treatments. So a universal system proposed by the Democrats is seen as forward progress by you but not by me. The differences between the parties arent the problems we see, it's how we'd fix the problems. Most Republicans see forward progress by individual, local and state solutions while most Democrats see forward progress by Federal solutions.",c00c1e35-d1c8-4aa4-a8c3-5d8ea3fcc58d
+"I mean, as hardcore as it used to be to equate Republicans and Nazis, several literal Nazis have run for political office in this country under the Republican banner within the last couple of years. There's clearly enough overlap in belief systems for said Nazis to believe that they can successfully run for office under the Republican banner. I can only imagine it has no small amount to do with our current ""president"" saying that he believes there were good people among the hard-right/white supremacist ralliers in Charlottesville, not to mention having a psychopath white supremacist like Stephen Miller in charge of immigration policy.",25fffcf3-4f91-40f6-a9a0-4045c50a329a
+"Since I lacked a definition I will go more into my ""view"" of a civilized country should be. I believe that well-being is the best basis for morality, and that the government should operate under the functioning philosophy of providing as much well-being as possible for as many people as possible, obviously, without going bankrupt or interrupting certain ""freedoms."" That being said I believe that: - Bodily Autonomy should be respected in situations where a person is of reasonable mind to make those decisions or has legal documents containing the decisions they made. - Poverty should ideally not exist at all in America, but it certainly should be significantly lower than the current \~12% of the population. - Health Care should be a basic utility that everyone has access to, not a competitive market for multi-million dollar companies. - Gender and Race Equality should not be something that needs constant fighting, it should be as universal as basic human rights, and disparity in any area of governance, city, state or federal, should be punished appropriately (i.e. disproportianate shootings of black people, disproportianate imprisonment, illegal immigrants being held without trial or deportation, bathroom laws, abortion laws). - Significant Reduction of American Military spending. - Redistribution of wealth, the top 1% can live with 90% of the wealth and the rest of the earnings can be better distributed downwards to middle and lower classes to better create scenarios where more diverse and intelligent people can build business, economy, and community that will help America prosper as an economic and cultural giant. I hope this is enough clarification on what progress should and can be made in the country at the given time. In general, increase the well being of life for ALL AMERICANS, should be the primary goal of the federal government.",c54bed22-2988-4f2b-90fb-7daef276f143
+"In ex Yugoslavia, the government tried to fix historical injustices among nations by the same logic left is doing now in US. The problem there was every time the minority got promoted or employed everyone thought it was just because they were a minority. Since there were different minorities in different areas after 40 years basically every nation thought it is getting fucked hard. As soon political system destabilized we had genocide follow. When Croatia got independence, Serb started to get fired. Serbs rebelled and ethnically cleansed areas of Croatia where they were the majority. After few years Croatia military reclaimed and then ethnically cleansed them back. Fixing history injustices is a really slippery slope.",48b2fef2-a251-4ef1-8387-b2ef090d5654
+"While you talk in great length about the fact that gods benevolence is posibly not the same as our idea of god, you ignore other parts of the holy texts and statments by religous leaders devining god!s benevolence. Like that humans are gods favorite and highest creation. Why would god give his masterpiece spicies morals that don't go along with his views and favor mosquitos instead. You also state that God maybe isn't all good while leaders of abrahamic religions claim him to be just that. While I think that your arguments are valid if you were to discribe your own personal version of god, one which doesn't seem humans as more important and them just as part of one big system, the abrahamic belive that humans are special and gods interest also is in the interest of humanity kinda makes your arguments problematic.",ed0a9aa3-e00f-498b-936f-435a2d8c7e17
+"Does this justify not terminating the tenure of a proffesor that is spreading objective racist ideologies on campus? (See the link in the post or ask me for clarification). The issue is that a stretched truth can be turned into a really ugly thing. If I take the 1922 version fo your argument. ""Historically the Jews have enriched themselves by exploiting the German people. It is well known that the bankers, who are mostly run by the Semites, profit from the capitalist structure to deprive the hard working Germans from their just earnings."" Historically the Jews had always been economically better than the German population, and at the time of the hyper inflation crisis in Germany they were very over represented in the political class, they also got blamed for the Diktat (Versailles treaty). Did any of that justified the speeches at munich and the violence that occurred 20 years later?",fc47f812-ab05-4a00-9f5f-5ccd4cb64831
+"I would agree that both drinking/smoking and joining the military have an element of danger, but I don't think level of danger is why the ages are different. I think the reason for the difference is because you aren't treated like a full adult in the military. When you join the military they can/will control a lot of your life. They will control where you eat, live, work, get medical attention, etc. The list goes on and on. Their behavior and conduct are monitored a lot closer whether it is regarding your health or not. When you join the military you are not going to be able to make your own choices like a normal adult. If you live on base, they will do an inspection to ensure your room is clean, schedule your doctor's appointments for you, pay your utilities, and more! The military becomes a surrogate parent in a weird way. Drinking age and smoking require a higher age because you have the free will to use it as you would like. There is no one actively there to monitor you. Yes, there are laws limiting some conduct like driving under the influence but that doesn't compare to the leave of control the military will have over your life.",ee8b3eeb-7994-4dc2-bda8-73946dddc181
+"It serves the purpose of improving the culture around drinking. Many young adults never learn how to drink properly because their only access to alcohol is through frat parties where nobody cares about their wellbeing, and where people will be too scared of getting in trouble to call for an ambulance if the person ends up drinking too much. You don't see this horrible culture around underage drinking in other countries because the drinking age is lower. Drinking isn't something teenagers want to do more because they're told they can't, and since the drinking age is so low, people are able to learn to drink responsibly while still living at home with their parents.",b81e596a-0cc7-4307-9c94-bbe9c0af10cf
+"Well first you need to know what ""fascist"" actually means. Odds are you don't. I think what you actually mean is ""authoritarian"" and yes, it is authoritarian; it does not answer to populist demand, and governance is top-down, unlike in a representative government. As for progress, the CCP is extremely progress-minded. You're loosely associating ""progress"" with ""Westernization"" or ""liberalization"" which is an ethnocentric view. Progress for Chinese involves development and social order. Hundreds of millions of peasants have moved out of dirt villages into cities with apartments, electricity, education, health care, internet, telecom, food availability, and general satisfaction of life after the end of the Maoist period. Its actions aren't really comparable to Nazi Germany at all, actually. Censorship of speech, projecting power, a degree of nationalism, and some leninist reforms. That's about where it ends. No invasions, no pogroms (the persecution of Uyghurs is very complicated but not related to eradication or purity so much as cultural assimilation), a country built on the back of its own people with the consent of the governed.",6dbded9f-a011-49ff-8c47-3d56138115c5
+">On the flipside, progressives like to say that China is a fascist state because it demonizes right wing ideologies and protects their left wing ones. I'm not following this. What are the left wing ideologies that China protects, and why would progressives call China fascist for demonizing right wing ideologies? It is nominally communist but it has realized very little of what any prominent communist thinkers that came before it had envisioned, aside from nationalization of private property. Virtually all economists recognize the modern Chinese economy as one of free market capitalism that has some corrective controls placed on it by the state.",1f675541-e40f-452e-b754-45d0198b7c6b
+"If it bleeds, it leads. The media scews towards bad news, because that's what sells papers. Doom and gloom equals clicks. Don't worry everything is awesome, doesn't sell as well. Every negative climate change report gets headlines. Anything remotely positive is buries. (No, I'm not talking climate denial, I mean things like new prototypes for green energy sources, new methods of carbon capture, etc.) So onto your specific things 1- Star Trek, in a world, where labor is obsolete, then we simply won't work. If the price of food, drops to literally zero, then we won't starve. 2- carbon capture 3- Earth's population is projected to stabilize. There is no reason to believe that humanity will keep growing in population above 12 billion, which is sustainable. 4- have faith in nuclear power",17bfb511-89d8-492d-971d-158136ae8527
+"How could any of those catastrophic events lead to a betterment that is not possible now? I mean if you just reduce the number of people you wouldn't have solved anything you'd just bought some time for the price of millions of lives, which will take a toll on your morality and ethics. I mean the most positive outlook is that we could ditch capitalism and the necessity to produce in order to be accepted within society. Thereby reducing the fear of technology and hatred against each other and maybe just maybe get our shit together before that planet becomes uninhabitable.",d9740a69-aeea-4f4b-9a0e-34fad4119180
+"Wow. Points for effort! You really took your time and i think thats awesome. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Especially regarding points 2 to 4. Although i cant help but feel that we might not be solving them fast enough. We are taking steps, as a species, but the situation is far from under control. What if it gets (a lot) worse, before it gets better?. Regarding point 1, I think that in the 1800's, companies needed customers. But this time it might be different. What if its just going to be the rich, producing for the rich, at zero cost (bc automation = no cost of labor) and they just leave us to starve (or actively 'end' the 'non-owner' class) and they inherit the earth to do as they please? Why would they need customers, if they can produce everything they need, amongst themselves, at the cost of resources only? I think it would take violent revolution to force them to share, and thats very scary to me.",ea496fb4-bcf2-49e4-b9d2-7d0c99525559
+"Your view is based on a presupposition that you know when a life actually begins. Ultimately, I think, it’s a philosophical question. While conception is the moment when metabolic processes for that specific life begin, there were other events and processes that lead to the combination of that sperm and egg, your parents meeting, and there’s, and so on and so on. I don’t think any human can confidently say “this life began then” because of the trillions upon trillions of events that occurred before it in time leading to its existence. Without one of those events that sperm doesn’t go in that egg and those metabolic processes don’t begin. I think the answer as to when an individual life begins is “I don’t know” or “the beginning of the universe”. I realize this is my subjective opinion, but I can’t see how you can take one event and claim that ‘this is when this started’ when you still believe in causality. So I think that further honest debate narrows down the answer framed in a way that illuminates what we can know rather than what we do know.",94bbd513-63ef-4582-b51b-81060ad7168a
+"why is bodily integrity such an important right that trumps all other rights? you own your own body, sure, but if you act or acted in such a way as to violate someone else's rights, then a lot of things can justifiably be done to you, like imprisoning you (violating your right to movement and autonomy), silencing you (violating your right to speech), or even killing you (definitely violating your right to your body). and if a 7 month old fetus is just a baby (which physiologically it is, since many 7 month old fetuses are delivered early and are viable), why would society allow you kill a baby just to preserve your right to your body?",c35a650e-8f3a-4af0-83c3-c58a25543d98
+"See but that is a bit of a straw man. (Though someone probably exists like that) the vast majority aren't saying that a fetus has no value it all. They are saying it has some value, but not the same as person. This is where pros and cons come into play. I guess I could compare a fetus to a dog (even if you view a dog's life as equal in value to that of a human I think this is easier to see from another point of view than a fetus). If you kill someone's dog for a reason other than self defense then that is very wrong. But if a dog isn't adopted at a pound then they will kill it because they don't have the resources to care for it. Obviously a baby shouldn't be killed just because it will have a hard life ahead of it (I can't see whose parents would have aborted not) But when a fetus doesn't have the same value as a person, you can argue about pros outweighing cons. Benefiting the would-be-baby and mother. Those would never justify murdering a person, but it could justify murdering fetus (who presumably has less value than a person). I hope this makes it clear why some many not view a fetus as equal to a baby, but not equal to air either. Then hence my earlier arguement",21ecb840-c51b-45c2-b094-b2cce1f6948b
+"Choosing to disqualify Trump would be suicide for the GOP in the 2020 election. Even on the most aggressive timelines for an impeachment trial in the Senate, they would not be able to reach a verdict of disqualification prior to February, and that just isn't a realistic amount of time for them to spin up a replacement candidate for President. There are simply no good options right now, and even the palatable options would be caught flatfooted against the Democratic candidate who has already been campaigning for ~6 months. Moreover, it would be suicide for the individual Senators that are up for re-election in 2020. It would be all to easy for a Republican challenger to primary the incumbent on the sole platform of ""They abandoned Trump"" as a direct appeal to the Republican base. The base is what the Congressmen are afraid of - and why they ultimately support Trump at all - so this would be a clear path to the exact outcome they do not want. Finally, disqualification wouldn't win them the independent or liberal voters at all, because the people that support impeachment would just see this as a cop out to avoid doing what should be done, and those that don't support impeachment would see this as a coop to remove their ability to vote for a candidate they support, despite not finding him guilty of anything. In short, the Republicans in the Senate gain nothing and lose potentially everything taking this route. It is a a very bad choice for them politically, so they'll never do it.",e8115a7a-f447-43e2-bb03-c1cc8f43389b
+"GOP Senators in ME, CO, AZ, possibly even IA, are really endangered of losing their seats and Mitt Romney and Mike Lee of Utah are free to undercut Trump (Romney has shown a willingness to go against Trump, Utah had the lowest support out of all the states that Trump won). But the pinning of hopes on the capacity of the Senate to disqualify with a mere majority is pretty farfetched. So I would disagree with your assessment that it would be political suicide but that it is not going to happen since voting against Trump doesn't get removed nor disqualified makes futile. But imagine if the House censured Trump and passed a law that settle that the president is allowed to be indicted for state and federal felonies while sitting in office. Censure would end the investigation in the congress, but McConnell bottling such legislation would easily accused as contributing to lawlessness and rank criminality that exists in the halls of power - not a great look when running for reelection as he is doing while holding one of the lowest approval ratings in their state out all 100 Senators. Call the legislation ""No One Is Above the Law"" Act of 2020.",693ead30-ecfa-4fa1-af40-e07016a2bc30
+"I'm suggesting that it is a compromise where neither side gets everything they want, but they both get enough to consider it a win. Once Trump's ability to run is neutered, the power of his cult of personality will wane. It's not on it's own going to solve problems, but I believe that it puts us in a better position to start reconciling that we will be if the senate acquits or removes from office through conviction. In either of those two cases there is a side that has a lot of reason to be angry, and no incentive to cooperate with the other in good faith. If we can reduce the contempt that either side will have for the other we will be better off going forward.",315598c8-a725-4e79-8bc1-13a8fd4ab288
+"We can't even stop building power plants burning coal for electricity even though we've had the technologies necessary (fission, if nothing else) for decades, could we really implement global climate engineering even if we had the technology (which seems even harder than the green technologies you mention)? (And, as a point of order, solution is a pretty binary word. Climate change has already occured, has already done damage that cannot be undone with any amount of climate engineering. We're really working on reducing the future damage. It's a sliding scale all the way from ""only a degree celcius or so more"" to ""total human extinction"".) Do we not, instead, need to work on transforming how humanity works politically, globally? Change our cultures too, so people in richer countries start actually caring for those in the poorer ones, the ones that bear the brunt of the changes first? If we manage to get something resembling actually equitable global decision-making, at least for the biggest issues, do we then not have a pretty clear path forward, by way of investment in energy in a way that benefits all of humanity rather than in a way determined by local profit and balance sheets? At least for a few centuries in terms of fission power, and in terms of human suffering where all can be protected from the worst effects rather than leave those most vulnerable to fend for themselves.",eb929db8-5230-467d-838f-1d6f28e4d0e1
+"Thanks. This is really insightful. !delta. The problem of evil isn’t about whether a ‘god’ exists, but whether such a being has our best interests in mind. The attribution of benevolence to God is to make God’s supposed commands somehow more palatable to people, so that they obey them (because it is allegedly in their best interests to do so). This leads to a question though.let’s say this hypothetical God shows up and straight up tells everyone “Whatever, you got me. I can be a jerk sometimes’” then casually sneezes, destroying an entire planet in a show of brute power so as to suggest “What are you gonna do about it?”. Should people still hesitate to worship that being? What’s your opinion?",f767f560-b75c-4252-b274-5e575ea8002f
+"First, coal: coal remains the one of the best short term sources of power generation. Power grids have trouble adapting to peak use periods, so even areas with 100% renewable sources for regular power levels will have a coal plant on standby. until now. I mentioned superbatteries for a reason. I. E. They remove power grid dependence on fossil fuels for that quick fix that no other method could provide. Since it's a relatively new technology tho, it will take a considerable amount of time for us to see it in widespread use. Also they are pretty expensive up front. So your point about coal loses a lot of punch in context. Second: binary is what I was going for. I'm OK with that. I know what you're trying to say, I just don't think it's a relevant digression. Third: the richest country in the world, us, is producing more co2 than the next ten combined. So (assuming the other part of your premise, which I don't, but for the sake of argument) we can almost unilaterally reverse climate change, no consulting with poorer countries required. No sympathy required either, just sympathy for our own should be enough. I'm not saying that world unity is a bad thing, though what you suggest could easily be twisted to dark ends. I'm saying that it is not necessary. Besides, all the well wishes in the world will not be a quick enough or complete enough solution. A river always follows the easiest path downhill. I believe carving that path through a carbon sequestration method that is developed to be cheap and easy to implement, with a bar low enough for enough people to actually implement it, is required. World peace or not.",795529bd-ebf5-4b65-b55d-56e850e0e17c
+"Part of what makes Frankenstein a monster is the cosmic horror part of his design - he is compelled to life by an unknown force from an unknown source. If the source of this life were known (and indeed if it did not conflict with everything we know now and knew about life in the Victorian era too) then indeed he likely would not be considered a monster. It's also worth noting that part of what makes the qualification of a monster is the uncanny valley. Frankenstein's monster is human enough to be bipedal and a humanoid of human stature, but that is where the similarities end. Even if he were in fact human but looked like that, he may well still have been classified as a monster by the other characters he encountered in the story.",a8cae268-26e0-4637-9faf-10d0569d5d79
+"Proof: Frankenweenie was a pretty good dog after all. Also Dr. Frankenstein is the real monster. He’s the monster and his creation isn’t for the same reason that plastic isn’t the monster, but us throwing dump trucks of it into the ocean is. From what I gathered in literature based courses, the monsters in the books we read are mostly vessels of symbolism used to reflect monsters in each of us. Ones we may to want - or more offend NEED - to recognize in ourselves and push back on. Most stuff out there whether it’s a book, movie, or comic, is a commentary/reflection on people at the time or in general.",b6db5e38-9727-4d69-82f9-786361264525
+"Your post while illuminating doesn't address this point (or maybe it does, but I don't see the connection). >The real root of the CMV is this: if the technology behind making the creation can be mastered to a point where appearance and intellectual disability are no longer a problem, then there is nothing unethical with creating immortal beings and Frankstein type creations, just like how there is nothing wrong or unethical with getting a heart transplant today. >In which case, this means the ethical dilemma that sits at the center of this movie is a rather superficial one: essentially don't mess with the natural order of things until we have the technology to back it up? But at the same time, how can not make technological advancements in health sciences without crossing over the line of unnatural. I'm sure the first couple thousand transplants were also a horrible mess, but we learn from each one.",94ca675b-7c5a-4269-86f5-8164d8bfc049
+"Those aren’t my habits. I’m a bit of a neat freak, actually. I mainly used shit my brother and roommates have done to gauge an idea, but I’ll admit it was assuming. The “why clean before dirty” logic is just anti shower in general. You’re getting dirty by laying down during sleep, even if your bed is pristine. I’m using the morning as the most optimal time to be at your cleanest state. You go to work, school, whatever, in the morning. You start your day. You want to be at peak clean. I’ll see your scenario and raise my own. You go to the bed pretty dirty. Maybe not filthy but still pretty dirty. You wake up, probably the dirtiest you’ll be all day. You then shower all of that off. I’m not arguing that you get suddenly very dirty overnight, but it’s enough to argue that if you wanna be the cleanest you’ll be all day, and actually wanna take advantage of that, shower in the morning.",7946310e-9e66-47d3-b1b7-dc05345d421e
+">many places in many ways the Bible says god is good. As far as I can tell, every instance of this is in Psalms. (Mind you, I'm Jewish, so I'm not dealing with NT stuff.) Specifically, 25:8, 34:9, 100:5, 106:1, 107:1, 118:1, 118:29, 135:3, and 136:1. It's worth noting that Psalms is categorized as writings, not prophets. It's also worth noting that the word טוב which is used in each of these does not perfectly correspond to the modern English usage of good. >Nowhere does it say god is evil (I don't think). > >God created everything therefore he created evil would be another argument It does say that G-d creates evil in Isaiah 45:7.",bbacecff-04a4-4401-9be2-f26cd1bbba37
+"i think OP is referring to the cultural stigma that attaches negative moral value to having an STI diagnosis-- the idea that having an STI is shameful, indicative of immoral character (e.g ""sluttiness""), or indicates that god is punishing that person for some personal moral failing. it's common in some parts of the world to not be screened for STIs for fear of the social consequences of being diagnosed with an illness. it's kind of like that joke ""i diagnose you with X"" but instead it's ""i diagnose you with sinner"" or ""i diagnose you with deserves to die."" this stigma is one of the big boundaries in a lot of countries to getting people to test themselves and get treatment for hiv and other STIs, because they might be gaining longterm physical health for social isolation or even violence. if you're familiar with how hiv+ people were treated during the american aids crisis, with people unwilling to even hold their hands as they died, with families refusing to claim their bodies or ashes, that's the stigma op refers to not a stigma against the disease itself but rather the infected people. i have no idea why they'd want this view changed.",7f135b6f-c817-4609-93b8-a37061e1a3be
+"You're right, people shouldn't have a lax attitude about STIs. And that's not really what I'm suggesting. People can engage in safer sex practices while realizing that STIs aren't the end of the world, and not feeling uncomfortable talking about them. The attitude should be something along the lines of ""I don't want an STI and I'll engage in safer sex practices, but I also recognize that it's not a reflection on someone's character if they do get an STI."" A lot of work that the places I volunteer at do is STI prevention, and I think a large part of that is decreasing stigma and debunking misinformation.",5d1dbfc6-a311-4ff1-8b77-7949d6d366da
+"This is a good point and a very troubling point for me. You’re completely correct that we’re always communicating something about ourselves with our appearance. The trouble is, I’m not so sure it’s always clear cut what it is that we’re communicating with that appearance. I have no idea what some random person will perceive by m poorly kept beard. I can make some assumptions based on how I’ve seen people respond to poorly kept beards in the past, but I really can’t know for sure. So is it actually possible for us to “control” the self-expression that we’re always engaged in? Or does that sort of take on a life of its own, despite the fact that we are responsible for creating it?",2ca15704-7ee1-4716-aa2e-883c23148267
+"> So here's the thing, neckbeard has stopped being a term that has anything to do with actually having a neckbeard. That happened a while ago. It's now a general term for a type of dude (though I guess it could be extended to women as well) and a series of behaviors. It's the same as fedoras and m'lady (I'm pretty bummed that we're going into the 20's and fedoras were ruined before we got here) ​I did read your whole post but I'm quoting this section specifically because it seems to essentialize the point you're making. And I do understand the point you're making (you are often not actually addressing someone's actual appearance when the term is used. But the term certainly harkens to that and there's no shortage of synonyms to neckbeard in use. Creep. ""Nice guy"". ""M'lady"". So why keep this one? Does it really have enough value to justify the underlying problematic nature?",7eef0a9d-f80a-44b4-b664-5e7d2c3deca6
+"I think you misunderstand plea bargains. In most cases it's just the sensible thing to do. People aren't charged with crimes randomly. They're arrested and charged because there's enough evidence to show they committed a crime. Pleading, especially pleading down to a lesser crime, is just the sensible thing to do, especially when the punishment isn't that severe, regardless of if you have money. Lori Loughlin is a perfect example of what NOT to do. You know who she is and what she did. Again, YOU KNOW WHAT SHE DID. You know it because there's more than enough evidence against her and everyone else charged. She's the only one who is fighting it. Everyone else, despite being rich, are pleading to lesser charges and getting slaps on the wrist. She's foolishly going to spend a fortune fighting a charge everyone knows she committed, will be found guilty for, and punished more severely for. She should have plea bargained. Those other people are being sensible. They have just as much, if not more, money than she. It's just they're obviously going to lose and there's little sense spending a lot of money to be found guilty and punished more severely. She's being insensible.",e47cec3d-076f-479d-9adc-a7463982e7e1
+"I will leave this with one last thought on the subject: Non tipping has been and is still being tried in the United States by a variety of restaurants and it's failing. Google this. Read the initial articles when restaurants attempt it and then read the recent articles to see what actually happened. Joes Crab Shack - Fail Danny Meyer, huge NYC restaurateur - Fail Ivars in Seattle - Fail Sidecar - Fail I could go on as the list is long, these four should be enough to send you down the rabbit hole to find dozens and dozens of places that have tried to go no-tipping and abandoned it. Study shows that restaurants that eliminated tipping received worse reviews",3b6d3c24-ddfd-445f-bdf4-92402318958f
+">When they do, and they lawyer up, it catches the public's eye. As a lower middle class person, I would love to be able to hire lawyers to get ndas for me. Also, in the real world, the local news has already been destroyed so the beat reporter that would have been sitting in the courtroom looking for rich people isn't there. Also psa to anyone non rich people: small claims court is relatively cheap to file in but it will likely cost large corporations more than what you are asking for to send a lawyer to your city to argue against you. Send A notice of intent to sue with whatever law comes up on Google to these places if you feel wronged for between $200-$3000 or whatever the max small claims is where you live and they will probably try to settle with you. If you fail you will be out around 50 cents for postage and a couple hours of researching the law",4e3e7151-1958-436d-b328-15ee88e2b4c1
+"Its something like 93-97% of cases plead out. I dont know how often innocent people are charged with crimes they didn't commit, but it certainly does happen, i mean people are acquitted or cases are dismissed all the time right? The problem is, when you have such strong financial incentives to plead out, you can't know how often innocent people are pleading guilty. These cases are not being fought and the truth of the matter is never thouoghly investigated. People simply agree to whatever it is the state says they did cause they just want to go home. I don't think anyone really knows how often actually innocent people plead guilty. It seems common enough anecdotally, but i don't know if this has been looked at systematically or how you would even do that. If you plead guilty the matter is considered resolved. Its assumed that if you plead guilty, you did that because you were in fact guilty, but i think the real reason people plead out so often is because its the better deal, and not necessarily because they're actually, ya know, guilty.",97e0d13d-d867-4c7b-b22e-a6905577f0f7
+"I like TR but he's not even the best president from his family yet alone in all of history. FDR won by landslides 4 consecutive times so was clearly beloved by the majority of the American people for more than a decade. He guided the US through the Depression and WW2, two of the most harrowing periods of our history. The New Deal was transformational to the US. He did all that without being able to walk. I don't have time for a full essay on FDR and he certainly had his faults but he is without a doubt a more influential and better president than TR.",a415992e-386f-45d1-a76d-f5d39c7302c4
+"> FDR won by landslides 4 consecutive times so was clearly beloved by the majority of the American people for more than a decade. FDR was a tyrant and the reason why the two term limit became law instead of staying tradition. Being beloved by the population at the time is also no real measure of how good a leader he was. Hitler was beloved by the Germans, for example. It just means he was a populist, in the same vein that Trump and Sanders are. > He guided the US through the Depression and WW2, two of the most harrowing periods of our history. By sending hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans to concentration camps. Not to mention that the Depression lasted longer than it needed to because of his policies. > The New Deal was transformational to the US. Almost all of which was declared unconstitutional. Literally the only two institutions created by the New Deal that are still around are Social Security and Medicare, both of which are absolutely massive black holes for funds and should frankly be repealed. Social Security costs in particular balloon every year and the entire system relies on the current generation paying for the previous one.",50cd9640-7c47-49c3-93b8-4d782240b65e
+"Literally over half of my post is about his presidency. As the person below mentioned, Lincoln’s election caused the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation was also empty words, and Lincoln explained that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he would do so. Roosevelt is the greatest president, in my opinion, because he was the biggest activist in the Oval Office. He was, in essence, the Progressive Movement, which led us to the high quality of life and standard of living we have today. Without him, who knows where labor standards, corruption, or monopolies would be today. He revolutionized the office of the presidency, making it far more open to the public than ever before and actually responded to the concerns of the people. Edit: changed “inauguration” to “election”. Sorry, brain fart",c8c3e662-c662-4025-b8c6-2ea9c15ea153
+"I'm going to tackle your argument #1 about tipping improving service. Like all service-related things, we can only go from our own experiences with servers and other people. I'm an American living in Colombia and here the tipping culture is different. There is a fixed 10% added to every dine-in check for the tip (not on takeout). And by and large, the service here is worse than what I got when I lived in Atlanta, where I was living before my int'l move. The servers here know what I have ordered already and know what to expect (more or less) the final bill will be. They are not incented to do more than what is minimally acceptable unless they are bored or personal pride in doing a good job comes into play. There's no reason to think if a server got a fixed wage for their work instead of a tip that this same result wouldn't happen with them too since they are not motivated to do more than necessary either.",ee9552ce-d698-4fc7-9985-f35a05b7ed09
+"There’s nothing wrong with the idea but if your psychological well-being depends on others in society following a complex set of rules, then your mental state is by definition fragile. There’s nothing wrong with that, just like there’s nothing wrong with having a broken arm. Hopefully most people will make reasonable accommodations for your having a broken arm, but not everyone will, and you are at the end of the day responsible for your own safety (or happiness in this case) None of us are static individuals, we grow and evolve with the challenges that we face. Sometimes you suffer a trauma so great that you never completely heal, and that’s ok, but you should never stop trying to move on. This is of course referring to individuals with true trauma. We as a society should have no sympathy for those who fein injury to garner sympathy or to manipulate others around them.",dbd25878-f7d0-4f6c-a9bb-1d5648f75e15
+"> It's the trigger warnings for ""sexism"", something that does not ""trigger"" anything at all. Well it obviously does, or people would not be making a big deal out of it. For example, I personally love black comedy, and I don't believe I've ever been offended by anything in a joke except lack of creativity. However, that's not the case for everyone. The best way to make sure you get the right audience is to properly inform them of the subject matters that will be joked about or satirized. The alternative often involves censorship. Anyone who would be ""triggered"" by a sexist joke will know what they're getting into if they stay around for this hypothetical comedy show. This greatly weakens any argument for censorship or de-platforming.",7cf17424-8ee5-4da5-990c-0e058dde8e22
+That's one way to get companies to aggressively remove as many low skilled positions as they can. Finding a job sounds like it would be a nightmare under your proposed environment. CEO pay really isn't the problem anyway. There are plenty of small business CEOs that make less than executive level workers at larger companies. If you're just talking about the CEOs of the major companies like walmart or facebook then sure you start seeing numbers that really can't be 'morally' justified. The problem is these companies have the reach and scale that it just isn't possible to compete with them. Something needs to be done in order to distribute the massive profits they earn. Taxation policies and antitrust laws are good candidates for policies to revamp rather than trying to engineer CEO pay.,633f39f0-6880-4215-a01e-d1c9eb669fff
+"> That law, like many others can easily be circumvented. Not really. Change ""salary"" to ""compensation"" and it's a done deal. If there's ever any question about what should count as compensation, take it to court. This is the way pretty much all our laws work currently. This is certainly not a situation where we should forego a law because we can't figure out the exact wording to make it effective. If people start abusing a loophole, we can just go back to the drawing board to close the loophole. That shit happens all the time, fear of loophole abuse shouldn't prevent us from making laws. It just seems silly to say ""It might not be 100% effective all the time, so we shouldn't bother at all""",c2047ded-f36e-4a5f-9208-ec5db75441e4
+"Why buy a Lexus if it's literally the same thing as a Toyota, but with a different logo? To show others that you are above driving a Toyota. Buying meaningless art for ridiculous amounts of money might be of the same nature: if it gets the right people talking about the buyer, that effect alone might be worth it to people who can afford it. It may or may not have anything to do with the art itself. Can you make a piece that looks exactly like this? Undoubtedly. Can you sell it for more than the price of materials? You wouldn’t be hanging out on reddit asking these questions if you did.",28ad4e76-8757-489f-8b17-20b43b2ced24
+"I just want to mention that some artists don't feel that way. OP also talks about a canvas with color flicked on it - that would describe Jackson Pollock's paintings. The paintings just look like colors were flicked on a canvas chaotically, like a kindergardeners painting. But he didn't do it as a joke, he didn't do it just to make money, he put a lot of thought and effort in his painting. Similarly with the colored rectangles of Piet Mondrian. There are some artists who put meaning into their modern art and there are also recipients who get something meaningful out of that art.",2913cabf-1290-4e93-8ddf-2c4f40182c02
+"Read this article. It's called the Prompt Asylum Claim Review process. Immigration lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union said the administration’s process denies asylum seekers due process and highlights the limited role lawyers can play; lawyers are not allowed to meet with their clients in Border Patrol stations and are limited to brief conversations by phone. They've also implemented case completion quotas for immigration judges, encouraging them to quickly order immigrants deported and deny their asylum claims. Both Sessions and Barr have also taken away a number of tools that immigration judges have traditionally used to give asylum seekers more time to obtain attorneys or to close deportation cases that weren’t high priority.",ca01310e-753f-4d83-bb51-a6c2a32c812b
+">Issuing the decision Matter of LEA, which essentially made it so that victims of domestic violence (ie, largely women) can no longer have cognizable claims. Literally thousands of women who have been waiting years for their hearing date just had the rug pulled out from under them. The party of ""family values"" just removed a major protection against DV. That's ""doing better?"" Obviously DV is a horrible thing and the victims of it have my total sympathies, but out of curiosity why do you believe victims of DV should automatically be granted political asylum in a different country? >It's one thing if we're talking about prisons on the border; why the fuck is Farmville Immigration Detention Center in Farmville, VA overcrowded? It's a combination of the policy decisions I outlined above, which are designed to be harder on immigrants without regard for efficiency, plus the fact that DHS is now opposing immigration bond in virtually every case. Out of curiosity why did you choose to not also point out the fact that the number of people claiming asylum has nearly doubled in the last few years. Surely you would have been aware of that as a immigration defense lawyer? Or are you claiming that there’s no way that has anything to do with it at all?",72d0f81f-56ca-4aa6-9d7f-67e8c0637533
+"Toxic Masculinity does not refer to existence of toxic traits - it refers to acceptance and glorification by society of those traits and measuring success in personal and socio-political spheres by those traits. A woman who is vain, materialistic, controlling or emotionally manipulative is not considered a good woman by any means - in fact there is a general societal view that women SHOULD NOT be that way. When it comes to toxic masculinity, our society normalizes, celebrates and glorifies it as in indicator of being a man or manhood. This often leads to bullying/hazing, emotional stress/suicide in men, men unable to ask for help (because it is seen as a sign of weakness), making risky business and political decisions (because taking risks are seen as manly, and not being a p_ssy) leading to financial crises and unnecessary wars, and damaging the environment (because polluting muscle-cars are seen as manly while green-cars are seen as ""g-y""). Even political issues like refugee crisis in Europe, Negotiation and Trade Deals with Russia and China, and responding to Paris Climate Agreement are viewed in terms of ""Is this decision that of a manly man? Or is this decision that of a feminized soy-boy?"" I certainly think of Toxic Masculinity as a very big problem, if economic and political decisions that will affect generations after us, are being measured in terms of spontaneous manliness.",572cfcdc-14e0-4992-b84d-f4fba055d04c
+"Toxic femininity is harmless and only affects women according to this weaksauce argument. Not sure this WONDERFUL deflection is intentional, but damn is it a good one. Toxic masculinity is not the idea that certain traits can be toxic in excess, but rather that certain traits are inherently toxic. It's proponents would have us believe that they are only talking about phenomena such as rape and mass shootings, but by definition, only a few men are exempt from the rule. THIS is why there is no such thing as toxic femininity. Because when a biased entity like feminism, for which masculinity itself is threatening, creates a philosophy that enshrines the idea of threatening masculinity, it doesn't serve to highlight the same in your own side.",8a6dea19-5ea4-454a-9665-f8a2d4ede887
+">Toxic femininity absolutely exists. Think about traditional female roles: she's demure, sexy, prudish, nurturing, quiet, helpful, empathetic. So take these to the extremes and you have toxic femininity. I think we may have different ideas as to what constitutes toxic Femininity? Female gender roles are actions that society prescribes women to take. Take care of children, stay at home, avoid strenuous labour. That's how I understand them to be, at least. Femininity is composed of traits. Nurturing and empathetic are good examples, but the toxic version of being nurturing would be being controlling, and toxic empathy would be called being nosy. Despite that, your sentiment sort of rings true. Women have often been chastised for being nosy and controlling, although it's slowly becoming taboo to point these toxic traits out when found in women. Still, you brought about an important consideration: maybe the conversation has also been had. My perspective has shifted, so I guess that ears you a 🔽 delta. Edit: Δ thanks!",a9961dbe-be02-48a7-8391-086962126227
+"I think this interpretation is flawed for a few reasons. 1) DC v. Heller(2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated the 2nd Amendment and affirmed that it protected individual citizens’ right to bear arms. However, these are extremely controversial opinions that have been handed down pretty recently by a divided court, so some people question the strength of these rulings. 2) Dred Scott v. Stanford (1857) Part of the opinion handed down by the court claimed that Dred Scott could not be a US citizen, because if he was, he would have the right to own a firearm. Here is the actual text from the Dred Scott opinion: “[citizenship] would give [black people] the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went” 3) in this 1812 letter , James Madison (the man who actually wrote the language of the 2nd Amendment) states that the 2nd Amendment protects a private citizen’s right to own cannons. 4) the Militia Act of 1792 required that every “free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45” must have access to firearms in the event that a militia is called up.",76cecedc-f50c-4043-96f8-7e9969f2b0b2
+"I think you may be confusing refugees and asylum - the difference is that asylum seekers have a specific fear (persecution for political views or homosexuality or .) while refugees have a general fear (Syria sucks). According to the article you linked, Trump accepted more asylum seekers, not less. > In 2017 (the most recent data available), 26,568 persons were granted asylum either affirmatively or defensively—a 31 percent increase from the 20,340 granted asylum in 2016, according to the DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. My post is about asylum seekers. Edit: seems I made some mistakes here, see response below.",34168ff9-c0c0-466b-93f7-1441a584679e
+"I do believe that Trump’s election was good for the democrats since it rallied their voter base, just as any election always causes an upturn in votes for the losing party in the next election. However, any benefit they might have gained from Trump being elected they’ve pretty much lost at this point with all the crap they’ve been pulling to try and get rid of him. Plenty of studies have shown that things like the Russiagate investigation and the current impeachment hearings are just turning centrists and independents away from the democrats. TL:DR: Trump’s election would have benefitted the democrats if they didn’t immediately counteract that benefit with blatant partisan politics. Source for a hear claims: EDIT: Gotta love how these people downvote any claims that go against your narrative even when presented with a well sourced report from one of the most trusted news outlets in the US confirming said claims.",147e6587-a09e-4903-a1b4-f0b03e68adda
+"I've honestly had this thought, not necessarily that he's far left but that given his past political leanings, he might be amicable to working with a fully Democratic Congress in a second term should the quirks of the electoral college leave him as president even if Dems flip the Senate. I fully believe he ran because he was pissed off Obama roasted him at a WH correspondent's dinner and he was as shocked as anyone that he got the nomination, let alone the WH. What people think of him matters more to him than perhaps anyone, a chance to leave a positive legacy working with a Democratic Congress and no need to face voters again would appeal to him I think.",a3d1e2c8-817f-49b3-811d-69b190b60800
+"There is a very simple way that a federal healthcare system will reduce costs in the US and it is by eliminating the health insurance industry. At an absolute minimum, you can take the profits of the health insurance industry and remove them from the cost of healthcare. That's just brought healthcare costs down. Then you can take economies of scale into account, a single universal insurance provider will be cheaper and more efficient than many smaller ones because the risk pool is larger and fewer administrators are needed both within the insurer and within hospital systems. More savings. That's two major savings without ever touching on paying pharma companies or medical professionals.",dc75f514-8057-4e09-a6f2-d214e52c9666
+">American drugs and tech are sold worldwide. The only reason R&D costs wouldn't also be shared worldwide is if different countries paid different amounts for the same drugs therefore. Its not neccisarily the only reason. Some countries don't honor IP and patents and therefore once the drug is ""discovered"" anyone can make generic versions and sell them for cheap. Doing that reduces the incentive for private R&D. You could argue that costs aren't shared worldwide because only some countries actually allow the entity which performs the R&D to earn back the R&D costs and make profit on their R&D investments.",9dcbab2a-f0ae-44e4-bd20-c4b29cc789ff
+"The statistic isn't making any assertions on the neccessity of cost, as you have assumed, only that the US is leading in spending. Also, the fact that many companies are deciding to move research to the US supports my point. Also, your journal article limits itself to only new drugs, not drugs that are being imporved, or even other medical equipment. And based on that study the US is still leading in development by almost double. Finally, the article posted by stats news states that reduced price will reduce cost for the citizens and medicare. That's true but it will also reduce R&D, which is not helpful. If your argument is the US should reduce cost at the expense of innovation you are correct, but otherwise you haven't proven your point.",c1054846-efba-4efa-a319-80276f1be97c
+"So in a perfect world I might agree with you. In a world where consent was simple, and we could trust every adult to make a perfectly rational decision, without undue influence. Sadly, we don’t live in that world. In a world where euthanasia is freely available, people will be pressured into it. Old people and people with disabilities would in some instances be pressured by family or friends to submit to euthanasia. This could be well-meaning, wanting to eliminate their suffering. It could be from cold and calculating financial gain. It could simply be from personal emotional exhaustion. But it will happen.",aec1d53e-8d37-4c60-9a6e-714855d2be71
+"You seem to sum up few of the major problems is fear not of death but of failure. For me personally the time I most wanted to kill myself was actually when high and might douch desided I should be on suicide watch. Because unless you completely lost in your trama it's the most degrading bullshit I have experienced. With any method of suicide the chance to fuck up and cripple your self exists and what's worse living when you don't want to being crippled and consoled to tell you life is better. The last Psychiatrist I went to asked to to list things I felt were living for my 5 things included 2 books, a new episode of a show, Steak in 2 days and a new season in a video game. Some people are just made to not want to live why can we not give people the right to choose with reasonable protections.",9f7d4c6f-3f9f-47ec-b9f1-6c5658d68580
+"There is zero chance your firearm will be able to stop a tyrannical US government. You can have multiple handguns, rifles, you name it, if the government wants you dead, they can bomb your house from the air, or your neighborhood, or fire missiles. The fact is, the only way for the people to be a check on government power using weapons, is to make the entire populace an organized military, which isn't feasible. The ""check on governmental power"" thing worked when the country was created because of weapons technology and the fact that we won the revolution based on different warfare tactics the British weren't used to. If every gun owner in this country tried to stand up to the US military following governmental orders, then every gun owner in this country would die. Period. The best way to check governmental power is to vote, make sure that the people in charge are people you trust, vote them out when you don't trust them, be involved, protest, run for office if no one you trust is running. Keep the government in check by putting people in government you believe will keep you safe and not abuse that power. Any armed rebellion in this country will fail, full stop.",bda8b22b-96ae-4688-ac3b-ed7b57e1eec8
+"To add to this, we tend to think of tyranny as something abstract: the government vs. the people like in some sci-fi dystopia. But even the most tyrannical regimes throughout history didn't pit themselves against the whole populace. They rose to power with the support of some segment of the populace, often by promising to be tyrannical in their favor against some other group. Fascism did this with race, theocracies with religion, communism with class. The sad reality is that a person owning a gun is not inherently any more likely take up arms for or against a government that's tyrannical in their favor.",6fbede07-7878-47fb-b044-d7b1e2a0df52
+"Water use is regulated in most states exactly the way you want. I am familiar with WA laws, but I imagine it is similar everywhere else. In WA the water belongs to people. Your land can have water use rights - ability to apply water to agriculture for example. There is usually a target water use (in acre feet per year) and season (April to October if I remember correctly). The ability to apply water is orthogonal to the availability of water: if you have water rights, you can truck it in or pipe it in if there is no source on the property. If you don’t, you cannot use it even if you have a stream flowing through your property. All this said, a million gallons a day is nothing. Alfalfa requires 12000 gallons per acre per day - so your entire Nestle budget is like one smallish farm.",781ca1a1-3fcf-4715-b2ef-b32e9212f11e
+"> Why should the most populous areas of a state have the most say in what happens This argument drives me crazy. It's literally how democracy works. The majority gets to decide. Now, in a smart society, a majority vote is balanced by certain ""sacred"" individual rights, so that the majority doesn't just turn minorities into slaves and such. So if you want to make an argument that something needs to be protected, you better make a better argument than something that sounds like ""city-folk are dumb and country-folk are wise"". That aside, all regional resources have state-wide implications. There are no closed systems in nature. If a small region runs low on water, they're going to want to import some. If they have an overabundance, they might trade it to other regions for something they need. That's how the world works.",064822ff-a031-4832-91cd-9fd63a572e7d
+"I think that's a million gallons a day. studies show just under an inch I guess of river levels. That still seems like a lot. And that's just one water district. Another problem is that bottled water has like no value added. When you use water for agriculture the result has like other regulations contributions to revenue and stuff through taxes. Bottled water may or may not be sold in state and subject just to sales tax. not a big return. It's possible to regulate it differently for different industries. Plus, agricultural use should probably be regulated too.",beb4dce7-017a-45d5-9c97-24b1cc5c9328
+"So it might be a bit late, but what I wanted to say, is that for a long time now, we rarely find out that our science is incorrect. Usually it's that we find out that that our knowledge is correct but only given some assumptions. For example Newtonian physics is a correct approximation as long as the speeds/masses are low (most real-life cases), Relativity is ""more"" correct, and required in very high speeds/large mass cases, but doesn't invalidate the previous understanding only extends it to the cases where the previous theory was incorrect. This is the beauty of scientific method, you need to prove your theory with experiments, and those experiments need to be reproducible. So for those cases we do know our science is correct. Another part is that for example Physics doesn't really try to answer the question ""Why?"" but ""How?"", so we are interested in ""How gravity works?"" and not ""Why gravity works?"". The difference is subtle but important. And finally I would say that we have pretty much narrowed down what parts we don't know. We don't know about stuff that's very hot, very cold, very far, very big, very smal ect. You will notice that the places we have problems with are usually extremes. And while further experiences into those extremes might give us more information about the general workings of universe, our current theories will work fine in situations where they currently work fine.",3d82a80c-b9a8-4450-a65d-fe679b938cbf
+">Science is open to the idea that it doesn't know everything. Unfortunately, our culture has turned science into an unthinking religion of sorts. People are expected to bow down to the purported omniscience of science and questioning makes one a heretic. That's how we end up with absurd situations like people being expected to value a physicist's opinion about GMOs more than that of any other lay person. The physicist and the average person both are not farmers, geneticists, bioscientists, doctors, nutritionists, or possibly even people who read a great deal about health topics. But we are expected to give more credence to the uneducated opinions of the physicist than the uneducated opinion of the non-physicist simply because the physicist wears the mantle of the scientific clergy.",9ae8061c-f95f-48c3-b8e9-a06ccf8d47cc
+"Maybe I should have mentioned that I don't really know anything about philosophy because my high school experience with it is pretty horrible (at least so far, I'm still in hs, but I doubt I'll suddenly start liking it in the next 5-6 months) I am interested in reading about philosophers who talk about these things, but unfortunately, I don't know anything concrete about them, thanks to my teacher > But do you really think that nothing has been achieved by science and empirical study in the last 3000 years? Relatively nothing I guess. It's a lot for us today, but probably nothing compared to all there is to know.",43d3d18e-7648-4ee8-8058-a19b77161442
+"First: Santa Claus. ""The Santa Clause"" was a mildly popular xmas movie starring Tim Allen > Years later in primary school kids are either > >embarrassed as they find out that Santa isn’t real when told by another child (often publicly), or > >kids find out through second hand information (e.g overhearing their parent) and either cry about being tricked, or start telling other kids who don’t already know and pretending like they knew all along. The child they tell ironically likely ends up in scenario one above. So, is your argument that kids should experience some level of embarrassment or a discovery that even the most trusted adults lie to them sometimes? I think both of those lessons will occur eventually no matter what we do.",3c5605a0-2c33-44c8-990b-bb34b3ca7cc9
+"Thing is, I don't really think this goes against the OP's point. When pressured, your dad did exactly what the OP is advocating for--he acknowledged that Santa was a fictional character. And while we can certainly take valuable lessons from the idea of him, I don't think anyone would deny that we can't take worthwhile lessons from other works of fiction too. If a kid reads Harry Potter and takes from that the idea that they need to stand up to bullying, I don't think anyone reasonable is going to put them down for that, but at the same time, I don't think anyone would claim we need to pretend Harry Potter is real for them to learn that lesson.",05216614-7ea7-4cd6-8982-5db6d5d1b379
+"I watch Youtube daily and I’m subscribed to quite a few channels, but nothing in this rewind even closely represents what I watch on youtube. If they really wanted to they could do “personalized” rewinds that showcase my activity on youtube through the year. They have the data and resources to build an AI system to do it. Spotify did just that and it was wonderful to see who my top artists were, what I listened to the most, which countries, they’re from, etc. And my friends and I were all sharing that with each other and tons of people were sharing it on instagram.",594bd4b5-c985-4694-8839-f41d80e30fdc
+"> hot or trending sections. I used to, until they ruined it. Now it is just whoever pays YT the most. It is mostly all TV garbage anyway, you know, the thing I am getting away from when using YouTube. I love the idea of YouTube, but the actual company has been failing left and right in the past several years. They feel the need to fuck with everything because they think they know better (and they want you to watch the things that get them the most ad money, and the best image possible). They fuck with thumbnail art and previews (setting it to something other than the creator has set), they fuck with my recommended and their bots are trash at suggesting videos. They even mess with the subscription page.",3419665c-ed5c-48d4-8c9f-ed6c95652ad2
+">It made me wonder why the choice was made, and almost made her feel a little bit more token-like than I would have liked. It sounds like it has done more than make you wonder - it has made you assume the reason was a reason you don't support, hasn't it? You are claiming this casting choice was made for reasons other than the actress having the right blend of acting-related traits the producers and director was looking for, and want someone to prove to you that that isn't so, right? But the only evidence you have that this black actress was hired for no reason other than being black is that she is black when the previous actor wasn't. The action can't be motive for the action.",ac831274-976e-4401-8fc2-4b00ef5b5fd3
+">The only reason it made waves at all is that the difference is so stark. But this is my point. >I haven't seen data on who auditioned for the other parts, but I imagine it was a load of white people. Regardless, they've stated many times that taken and ability were their only criteria. I'll grant you that they may not have cast the actors based on how similar to the movie characters they appeared, but they certainly used makeup, wigs, and clothes to make them appear as close as possible. I put together this little impromptu album, to show. They tried as hard as possible to make Harry, Ron, and Draco look like 20 year older versions of the movie characters. Then it becomes even more jarring that Hermione is the only one that looks different.",f26bd6bb-c985-4ddf-8cf8-29b25ed11624
+"> Would you tell someone whose been robbed more then once its clearly their fault now? Fault? That's a bit different from the view I stated. But if you've been a robbery victim multiple times then, yes, I think you should reevaluate what you are doing that is contributing to that. > Would you tell a family with multiple murder victims they must just have a really killable last name? If a family has multiple murder victims in their lineage (and not all murder victims in a single instance), then, yes, there is likely something about that family's behaviors (not their name) that contributes and they should evaluate that. > Of course you fucking wouldnt. Errrrrrr",40159cd3-3bb8-480d-9d2c-85fb8ff9d80b
+"Gun buyback without winning hearts and minds will just shift upwards a third of American households into a state of criminal status. There are too many Americans that identify themselves as gun owners, and any attempt to confiscate their guns would be met with similar resistance as forced school busing or other racial integration efforts, because those efforts challenged the identity of the typical white person, as would confiscation of guns from gun nuts. Gun deaths in America are largely result of suicides, while all of the mass shootings get all the attention, if we had an organic path to American gun ownership of the rest of the western developed countries, we'd probably see similar drop-off in the gun fatalities. If the decrease in legal gun ownership is done as involuntary, it is plausible that they response of the more than hundred million Americans with access to firearms some minority decide to cause civil unrest and we will never get to that stage where Americans have a similar per capita gun ownership as the rest of the world. I don't know if this would be an effective way to get a lower rate of gun ownership, but if we treat gun ownership as public health problem and move culture away from gun ownership the same way culture pulled away from tobacco smoking and drunk driving. When it becomes as much of a pariah of owning a gun as it is to continue to smoke while pregnant or around a pregnant woman, then it would have been a successful effort.",8953c6cb-5d21-426c-97e1-caafb98aaa03
+"Taxing the wealthy at a higher rate would pay for programs. As a member of society whose wealth is protected and ensured, they themselves arguably benefit the most from society, versus others left at the bottom of the ladder. If you partake in society’s benefits, you are obligated to pay so that the society that benefits you can continue. Here, they, like all of us, are consumers of the goods and that a society provides. When it comes to alleviating poverty, it is fundamentally in their best interest to support these programs. Less poverty has indirect but tangible effects, including that of a healthier population, less crime and disruption, etc. There’s also protection via defense, the police and hospitals that treat them, etc.",424b7fae-b0fc-4dbb-a667-3a3906a3a3a8
+"If you're talking about welfare and then yes to a point. If you're talkin about pure redistribution absolutely not. I very much disagree with Universal Health Care because it will require wealthy people to pay for most of the middle class people's Health Care. But I am very pro food stamps and Medicaid. I don't think poverty should be comfortable but it definitely should be livable. I don't think we should provide cell phones/ apartments/ cars to people unless they are elderly. I think we should provide enough housing to protect people from the elements, food, and Healthcare. The housing could be a tent or a homeless shelter depending on the climate. I think that it is actually very beneficial to wealthy people to pay for these programs because it improves the economy and decreases poverty and crime substantially. but this stops happening when you start providing for people who can already provide for themselves. I'm absolutely for anybody donating to a charity, but taxes are forced charities so there need to be restrictions.",ccaa3d25-78c0-4236-8bde-2b5c59d13d88
+"Gender is a social construct,' is a completely nonsensical statement. It's never said by anyone intelligent. The same people who say it are the ones who are so adament about letting their children choose their gender. Transgenderism by definition is the acknowledgment of gender and perpetuates the 'social construct of gender'. It's dumb. There are classic gender roles that many people choose to follow, but many do not. If you don't want to be a stay at home mom, don't marry someone who wants you to be one. Following and promoting liberal ideas of the role of your gender is a far stretch from claiming gender is a social construct. It's also ironic that the same people who push this sentiment are almost always atheists, but also not friendly to scientific facts. It's like a new breed of nihilism. 'We don't just believe that everything means nothing, we actually want everything to be a cluster fuck of meaninglessness so that we regress instead of progress to make our point of pointlessness.' Might as well grab a sword and run through the fields cutting of the dicks of wild horses. That'll teach' em.",55245bce-f874-46c2-9724-c063414bf058
+"> I think letting a child decide gender first has a nasty chance of letting society pressure that decision. Let nature decide first, and be ready to support change. Letting nature decide first is incredibly traumatic for trans people, though. Transition is so much easier when you're not trying to undo what puberty did. >Where we are is not that far from parents DECIDING their child's gender, regardless of nature or the child's future opinion. Where we are now is doctors deciding the child's gender based on the genitals they see, regardless of nature or the child's future opinion.",c6b42538-312a-4a66-8cce-bc333870a348
+"Being racist is one thing, profiling is another. Tldr humans are good at pattern recognition. If I see a person acting like a thug, I avoid them. If I see a person well dressed and living his/her life, I ignore them as I do everyone else. The problem comes when you start to mix the two. Let's say I grow up in an area with loads of black, violent gang life. I might get skitchy I'd I see a well behaved and normal human, who is also black. That's racist. Same works the other way. If you grow up with white cops beating down on you and your friends, you might become coarse towards Any white person. Humans like to look for patterns for easy decision making. You just gotta keep color out of it.",08e03219-1919-4723-8928-9d73d3b6df85
+"> I simply don't see how a persons race factors into whether they might be dangerous or not. Because in the US, there is a very high rate of correlation between someone's race and their culture. Southern culture is one of the worst ever conceived (being extremely violent, lazy, over-sexualized, and generally anti-social) and the overwhelming majority of black people fall into that culture, based on where they and their ancestors are from. I am fully aware that that sounds racist to people who are stupid, but it's actually not. Southern culture is predominantly white culture, specifically Irish/Ulster culture, that black slaves adopted and maintained as their own after being freed. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the shitty things you believe in and value.",654dece6-4bf6-4e1c-9254-f58cdec808d6
+">As others have pointed out, young black men are not the majority of many kinds of violent crimes, and when they are, they are not the majority by a lot (say 10-20%). I'm finding it puzzling that i have to keep repeating that blacks only comprise 13% of the population. I would have thought that most people would understand why this is relevant. >I would argue that the best way to profile dangerous people is by gender, not race. I don't see why you can't do both. >by Baratunde Thurston shows the number of times white people have called the cops on black people for unjustifiable reasons. I'm not advocating calling the police.",001eb866-9051-4ca7-8c84-10bab831c414
+"Are you saying that if we just were able to listen to personal life story and inner motivations of Adolf Hitler, we’d come to understand he was really a good person? While I admire the empathy behind that sort of outlook, sometimes we need to use our judgment when making decisions about human beings, and these judgments often require us to decide if certain human beings are beneficial or harmful, which is to say good or bad. I don’t know how else to judge if someone is good or bad except by their words and actions. And I also don’t know how to safely exist in the world without being able to distinguish between good and bad things, good and bad people?",6f8ae1bd-ba83-4ada-92ea-74ece0dd9df3
+"> Why should we lump the good in with the bad, when they're 2 separate categorizations for a reason? Agency and future potential. >Say we have someone who only makes bad decisions and choices. Would it not be fair to call them a bad person, if they only did bad things? I'd argue that no person exists, except people who've died in infancy or something, whose decisions were 100% unarguably bad for the entirety of their lifetime. >I'm sure Hitler showed chivalry and told his mom he loved her, but the bad things he decided to do were really, really bad. Saying that Hitler was a bad person without studying his actions and motivations means being doomed to experience another Hitler in the future. I don't see any reason why it would be impossible for another person to repeat what Hitler did given same/identical circumstances.",2cfc4548-8007-4224-9ed4-f5f2effd1f0a
+"No, I'm not saying we would see Hitler as a good person. I'm saying if we looked at all his actions we would get a more nuanced picture of him than we have now. > . I don’t know how else to judge if someone is good or bad except by their words and actions. Exactly. Their actions (speaking is an action) is the important aspect. He did X in Y situation. That was beneficial to us. Let's keep him doing that. > And I also don’t know how to safely exist in the world without being able to distinguish between good and bad things, good and bad people? What if I told you good people do bad things? Then you can't safely exist in the world? Of course you can - you already do, no?",994b5571-fc57-4d81-ae07-45695bbe25f5
+"On one hand I understand what you’re saying. If people are born a certain way isn’t it only natural to identify them as such? Isn’t expecting me to accept someone else’s view of what they want to be a little delusional? On the other hand, when I was a child, I was often called a girl. I was born male, but I like to cook and played with dolls and was sensitive and more emotional then my boy counter parts. This often hurt my feelings and I felt I didn’t belong. I think that’s why it’s important to accept people for what they want to be no matter how they act or what they do. Because it’s a double edged sword and every one deserves to feel like they are respected. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover, but by it’s content.",8dec93ea-e853-4d04-8bc7-57f8cc10155b
+"This is a great analogy. But I think the problem is there simply has to be a line drawn somewhere between social identify and biological fact. And in my opinion that line should definitely be drawn before identifying if you have a penis or not. If you refer to someone as parents over guardian what truly happens at the end of the day.nothing? If someone misinterprets another's sex what could happen.an uncomfortable sexual encounter, a misdiagnosis, an unfair physical advantage in competitions just to name a few. If there's anything at all that needs a firm definition when describing yourself, shouldn't it be man/women? If that becomes unimportant then shouldn't race, ethnicity, and sexuality all be disregarded?",b763b9fc-1891-4162-871a-1b0ef40100ca
+"A couple of points. First, I don't think this is a nefarious agenda. I think it is a natural and understandable outgrowth of the condition of being transgender. Second, you bring up a common trope which I didn't explicitly call out but I'll address here: you don't need to check genitals to make a determination about someone's sex. Secondary sex charateristics are what we use. Infallibility is not a criterion for this. I'm really not interested in yet another argument about this but if you want to present any new arguments that address the heart of my CMV I would be happy to converse.",5afbe4d0-59cd-47f5-90a9-b8ca8af34d99
+"It's hard to change your mind because most of us here disagree with your premise and assertions. We want attentiveness. Americans tend to be friendly anyway, and what you are as fake, we are as friendly. I don't experience hostility from servers when I say I am just gonna get a drink and share an appetizer (but I tell the hostess first so they can balance me with other guests). I like that I don't have to hunt down my server to get the bill the way I do in Europe. No one cares if you linger at a table unless there is a long wait, but if there is, it's courteous to those guests waiting to leave once the meal is done. It's not just about making bigger tips. It's about pleasing those waiting. The service you experience in Europe is because of European cultural norms, not tipping. Similarly, the service you experience here is do to our cultural norms, not tipping. The service here is no different when places impose a service charge instead of tipping, as they often do in Europe.",fb3e9bb1-89ec-4575-8989-44c428af6c4e
+">Having built a reputation as a good tipper, I am treated very well. I will get hooked up in certain ways, I get seated quickly, or in a crowded bar recognized and served immediately. Staff doesn't really get ""pushy"" per se because servicers ate intuitive about the style of service I want that day (if I'm alone, maybe the server will engage in a conversation. If I'm with a crowd, we still get treated very well but the server will generally leave us be) It's the same thing as building a reputation as a frequent customer. The same thing happens in Europe but, instead of tips, you earn such a reputation by being a nice person. You treat servers decently and they will treat you well.",00a9d1d4-1c25-418f-a7db-577db6cbf949
+"Sure you might only realize at the end of the night that I'm a bad tipper or miscalculated my budget that one time. If I come back though, you might hold a grudge. But if I come with a friend, order one appetizer and eat slowly and say that's all I'll have or ask you right away for a really cheap drink, you'll see me as a bother you wont profit from. Maybe not you personally but a lot of people who are looking forward to a tip will get annoyed in above scenarios and make it palpable to the customer. Without tips, we can both relax.",f4f2e8a4-7f8e-4e27-8c22-ac28417f2510
+"I enjoy Rogan but even if he's not alt right, he is effectively a tool to them at this point. This is mostly because he is not a very critical person(a) yet the role he plays really does require one if the show is to not be a harmful source of misinformation. Considering this, I think I'm faced with two possible explanations for his behavior - his persona is (partly) a farce, or he's just kinda dumb in some ways. He's great at keeping conversations engaging, but he displays little discipline in logic and just lets ridiculous things go or even affirms them himself. I honestly think it's the former. Joe is clearly a businessman kind of person and being a conduit to a large audience of rubes is a fantastic business model. And he has little reservations about making money promoting all kinds of garbage. So he's very ""capitalistic"" judging by his behaviors. But he does also have a very individualist streak with a certain anti-government flair. I think we don't know where Joe actually sits politically, but he manages himself in such a non-committal way that on the one hand you're right to say calling him alt-right isn't necessarily correct, yet on the other neither is your claim that he's very left of center. He seems more right-libertarian( than anything. That is not really left of center, although the left/right dimension may be inadequate in general.",9a0b9e61-116e-4db0-a53d-dff0e4277db3
+"Also there is an illusion that everything is right or left. Total nonsense. Really there is a wish for truth on both sides, and we are blinded by black and white thinking. When humans become really emotional , stressed or angry , they can’t use the majority of their brains and revert to ancient animal brains which offer fight or flight. Evil or good. Right or left. Binaries which mean that the stressed animal can quickly decide what to do (what to think). These binaries are called upon whenever someone doesn’t want to listen or respect someone else. But but but!! They are from THAT team. Best way to avoid thinking",546a930c-87b5-4369-9b08-34005a9c224e
+"You missed the point, but that's my fault for poor wording. My view is that by being dishonest about things and overreacting the far left looks really stupid to the middle. Many in the middle are able to see this and it adds to the idea that the woke left just want to stay in their bubble and put everyone else in it, too. This wasn't about my politics. And it shouldn't have even been about Joe Rogan that much. If I would have known this post was going to blow up I would have spent more time wording it correctly.",d1d43a09-32ad-4d43-94c1-b147367a965d