Datasets:

webis

/

conclugen

like 1

Risking being honest and then really listening to your partner's response is the ideal response. That maintains the trust which is a cornerstone of any good relationship. If you can't do it, the relationship hasn't reached that level yet.

It is disrespectful to your partner to conceal that you broke your commitment to exclusivity.

8d524a02-560b-4a4e-9cca-09bc75438de2

Our idea of what we define as evil might be a limited vision of a bigger plan in which evil is a necessary element to its realization.

Humans are limited in their capacity to conceptualize God, and thus are incapable of accurately judging the relationship between evil and a divine being.

c716745e-ac0e-4c1f-8451-82f0753284bb

A heavily-armed EU might dissuade Russia from getting in the way of EU and neighbouring countries, and their common interests.

Russia currently poses a large threat to the safety of Europe.

23804421-0267-436e-a197-145583a3d17d

As obesity has become an epidemic in America and other countries around the world a fat acceptance movement has become more popular. This is the most idiotic movement I have heard of with people saying we need to accommodate them and give them special treatment. while I worked as a cashier years ago I got disgusted by people who took the electronic carts because they can't walk 10 ft without running out of breathe and even more disturbed that thwy all had handicapped parking stickers. If obese people get diabetes, arthritis knees ankles , scoliosis, they should be 100 responsible for their medical bills by private insurance and without government funding. With everything available to lose weight and keep a healthy diet and literally free exercise I don't believe there is such thing as healthy fat because you can always become more healthy.

I believe "fat acceptance" and the disabilities that come with being overweight should be discredited and should not be viewed as disabled or receive government help.

b102b994-416e-4570-b6f5-94eac4794ebc

Research has examined the impact of these sports activists and the movements they have influenced through their public visibility.

Sports creates idols who become beacons for social change, and they can spark a movement.

464b63a7-8ec0-4231-9acc-3a07a998aa08

For starters, i believe freedom can't be summed up in a 2 dimensional chart. I view freedom as having 3 dimensional matrices that is many layers existing and interacting with each other. how to explain beyond that i am still working out. ​ Second i believe there is some kind of advantage to having the oldest first document constitution that has stood the test of time. Much like how Elon Musk with Tesla in how he has so much raw data he has been gathering to advance the totality of his smart car fleet, that he will be exponentially ahead of anybody that tries to surpass him. i know that is a rudimentary analogy but bare with me. ​ The United States Constitution has had influence internationally on later constitutions and legal thinking. Its influence appears in similarities of phrasing and borrowed passages in other constitutions, as well as in the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and recognition of individual rights. America has the oldest constitution except for maybe The Republic of San Marino which instead of a single document, is comprised of a series of six books written in Latin, collectively referred to as the Statutes of 1600 . These came into effect on the 8th of October, 1600. America has made updates to the constitution but nothing that would be considered fundamentally changing. THE most important part of the Constitution of the United States is those parts which discuss the nature and purpose of government. Government does not exist for the benefit of those in power, rather, it exists to protect the rights of its citizens. Consequently, governmental authority finds its basis in the will of the people. As the Declaration states We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. I would like you to see you argue a country that rises above that in the name of freedom. Freedom doesnt mean utopia, it comes with it's own flaws and i'd gladly discuss that. We may have more violence than most 1st world countries, but it is a trade off as is everything in the sense America has the most rights to protect the self and property. We have it baked into our constitution that we have the right to bear arms to form militias in times of governmental tyranny. here is a list of 10 easiest countries to get a firearm. notice America isn't on the list BUT how all of those countries allow guns for hunting or sport but NOT for protecting one self against the government if deemed necessary? We have created rights handed to the UNITED STATES to individually set their own laws dictated by their populace. the only major gun laws that have reformed the rights of gun ownership on a federal level are the National Firearms Act of 1934,and The Gun Control Act of 1968. although it should be noted that The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ATF , a division of the Department of Justice, administers the GCA. The ATF also regulates the standards for issuing licenses to gun vendors. Shotguns, rifles, machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The purchase of semi automatic weapons is legal in most states, as are automatic weapons made before 1986. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms. Political theorists like Yale professor Robert A. Dahl saw a problem with an American tendency towards worship of the Constitution itself. He saw aspects of American governance which are unusual and potentially undemocratic. There are problems with worship like this, but it is part of what has kept America together in my opinion. The ability to not lose sight of the core god given rights that can't be taken away from us.

America has the most "freedom" in ways that other countries can't competecurrently, with gun rights playing a more central role.

0d4c77ea-d1b0-4a0d-b0e8-2383fd34ed0d

If the scheme is national/regional only, and that net cost to some is too high, they may take their financial and/or other resources elsewhere. Would the benefits of living and doing business in a UBI society outweigh the higher costs in tax?

A UBI will increase taxes for those making money, thus pushing capital-makers to move elsewhere, and making the UBI financially unsustainable.

aca46b79-9689-474c-b253-50eeb3f59387

Attending lynches used to be considered a wholesome family outing but is, understandably and correctly considered abominable in todays times. Human pleasure shouldn't be the reason for continuing any practice.

People can enjoy murder, but that doesn't justify it.

547a9651-f1e5-4b4a-a981-17459ba7aebc

I have always been a huge Star Wars fan and I feel like Rogue One was trying its hardest to please hardcore fans like me. There was an amazing space battle, lots of references and fanservice, the return of characters like Tarkin, Vader and Bail Organa and a droid that acted almost exactly like HK 47, a very popular assassin of the Knights of the Old Republic games. And Vader's german voice sounded almost exactly like his great OT voice which I found pretty neat. But all that fanservice didn't convince me at all. And while there were lots of things for me to like about Rogue One such as the darker tone, the amazing visuals, the decent amount of worldbuilding and a Rebellion that isn't just depicted as the good guys , the core of the movie just didn't work at all. If I wasn't a Star Wars fan, I would probably think that this movie was complete trash. Here are the reasons The characters The characters were bland, underdeveloped and completely uninteresting. They had nothing to go for them except for the talented actors that played them. I know that this movie was supposed to be about a group of nobodies , but that doesn't mean that they aren't supposed to be interesting characters with their own backstory, individual goals more than just stopping the Empire and memorable personalities. TFA gets a lot of flack, but at least it gave us characters with unique manners and their own personality. Poe for example was definitely not a well written character but he still managed to be compelling because his character had a personality upbeat, sassy, great pilot, etc Now tell me what Cassian Andor is supposed to be? At the start of the movie, he gets depicted as a guy who thinks the end justifies the means but the movie never expands on that. When it's time for him to murder Galen, he just doesn't do it for no reason at all. Saw Gerrera is supposed to be an extremist who would do anything to destroy the Empire, but again, the movie doesn't show us that. He does torture an imperial deserter, but that really didn't leave any kind of impact on me. A skilled writer could've made a character like Saw very compelling, but the writers of RO just aren't skilled. The ending of the movie where literally everyone dies, gets praised a lot and while I definitely think that it was the perfect ending for this movie, it felt very weak to me because I didn't really care about our protagonists. If you write a dark, depressing ending for something, you have to make sure that the viewer reader can actually be saddened by it. And you can only feel sad about a characters death if you care about them enough. That simply wasn't the case. The biggest disappointment in terms of character was Director Krennic. I heard so many good things about him before teh movie came out. He was praised as a complex character with ambitions and a shared past with the Erso's, but when you watch the movie, you don't see a complex or ambitious villain and you would never assume that this guy was once a friend of Galen Erso. He was a generic, poorly written villain without character arc. Not only that but he was also a complete joke. He never accomplishes anything, gets humiliated by Vader and dies in the most unsatisfying, forced way possible. His connection with the Erso's wasn't apparent at all since he never behaved as anything but a giant douchebag in front of Galen or Lyra. And he didn't even recognize Jyn at the end? What ? But the worst thing about Krennic is that he is portrayed as an ambitious villain who never does anything to further his apparent? goals. He never even tries to betray his superiors. He cowers like a worm before Vader and it's pathetic. This is supposed to be the main villain? The music I'm not gonna write a wall of text for this criticism, since I think most people will agree with me here. This was the first Star Wars movie with a bad, forgettable soundtrack. And considering how important music is to make us feel more emotional when we watch certain scenes, the lack of good music is definitely a major weak point for this movie. Especially since Star Wars has always been known for it's amazing score. For example, just listen to this masterpiece and tell me that this wasn't the main reason why you loved the final confrontation between Luke and Vader in ROTJ. Everything was predictable For a movie that is supposed to be new , risky and unorthodox , everything was pretty much like I've expected it to be. There was nothing in the plot that surprised me, except for the horribly written villain. There were no twists and it felt like the writers made a script that would please us Star Wars fans instead of focusing on making a good stand alone movie. Take the ending for example. You could argue that killing off all of our protagonists was a bold move, but in fact it wasn't. Almost everyone WANTED this movie to end like that. It was expected. I'm not complaining about the finale, because I too think that it is better to kill them all off to make the plot of A New Hope more meaningful, but it was handled in such a way that it just felt forced. Another example is Vader. When we see his castle on Mustafar, when we hear him quipping about force chokes and finally when we see him kill Rebels in an amazing way, it really feels like his character was just there as expected fanservice, not because it was necessary to include him. He just does a bunch of cool stuff because everyone WANTED him to do that, not because it would have made the movie better. This movie feels like it was written by Star Wars fanatics, not by professional writers. It's hilarious how everyone loves to slam TFA for its fanservice when Rogue One, which is a far worse offender , is being praised for it. If you have to rely on a well established character like Darth Vader to make your movie compelling, you have clearly failed as a storyteller, imo. So that's what I think after seeing Rogue One for the first time. I hope I will be able to like it more when I rewatch it, but right now I just think that everyone who praises it like a second Empire Strikes Back, is deluding themselves. It was nothing special, really. Please convince me that I'm wrong.

Star Wars: Rogue One is a bad movie SPOILERS!

a9326721-b850-41af-acf5-6cc9126f942c

Mutant powers can be incredibly dangerous. People like Magneto, Professor X, or Storm while still people have incredibly dangerous powers. Having offensive mutant powers like pyrokinesis or laser vision effectively means that a Mutant would be fully armed at all times, even on airplanes or areas where noone should be armed. That would be security nightmare . Without regulation there would be no way of knowing which people are in effect heavily armed AT ALL TIMES. Some Mutant Powers can even pose a direct threat to society itself. If Purple Man wanted to he could easily mind control his way to the presidency. Magneto could destroy entire cities with ease. We can’t have our national security be dependent upon the goodwill of supermen. People born with such powers need to be monitored by the US government from an early age. The X Men universe shouldn’t be so Black and White as the civil rights allegory it is trying to present. There is a valid argument to be had for the registration and regulation of Mutant powers. What regulation that would entail I don’t know.

In the X-Men/Marvel universe the government should regulate/register Mutants

59dc9730-0b80-4a5d-81df-c00e5fb65ff8

This topic of descriptive linguistics seems to only pop up in specific circumstances to make a point like if enough people misapply a word, they're actually correct, in more fragrant, sophisticated, academic wording, even if the last thing to have come out of the speaker was OP is a faggot lol. However, the linguistic expertise is nowhere to be found when someone calls out that any insult is not automatically an ad hominem, is silent in the face of the ubiquitous you're correction, and holds back against dissonant prescriptions of literalism for the word atheism. The selectivity for which fights to pick is quite convenient. I understand semantic drift is a real thing, but something about the popular evocation of the topic strikes me as something like lying by omission. It seems that novel meanings keep some kind of connection to the word's etymology. An example would be the difference of meaning of authority as dictator or expert is how the root auctōritās warrant is interpreted. The word nice shows something more like a gradient, like a game of telephone over time. Mouse to mean a particular computer interface device is arrived by metaphor, the wire and arched shape are analogs to a tail and hunched back of a stereotypical rodent. These circumstances do not imply that a new meaning for a word can be born from mass incompetence, regardless it be a result from disseminated misinformation, popular myth, etc. There is no relevant ambiguity, neighboring nuance, or analog for scorn anywhere in the etymology for the word gay. The metaphor is made from a projected subjective version of the word as contained in the mind of petulant bigots. But this is the thing so important that supposed linguists suddenly crawl out of a hole and rally to validate, as if shift by metaphor obsoletes the vehicle word's meaning from the time the metaphor was made like if mouse were exclusively used for the electronic device and or destroys the presence of a metaphor like saying since mice is an accepted label for electronics, it has somehow shed the metaphor that earned it that label. I've had acquaintances in life say in full seriousness, in response to a resentment of social engineering for systemic and perhaps subconscious prejudice written into parlance, that I'm thin skinned since intentions while communicating matter more than the selection of word and the circumstances surrounding that symbol used in a system of communication . Basically a pleasant way to excuse oneself from second guessing their education and extending any empathy. I guess I can't blame them, since egotist philosophy, faulty heuristics and articulate sophistry are the new meaning of logic. I don't believe sweeping ignorance and bigotry under a rug should be a function of language. Explain to me why it should.

Semantic drift has become a propaganda tool for social engineering shills with a regressive agenda

9f16d1da-7436-4bfb-9ad6-42ce8123b0ae

Allowing individual distributed decision-making provides for the money to flow where it is most needed in the recipient's informed opinion, since the recipients of the UBI stipend will decide how to spend the money. If the money is most needed in adjacent communities/sectors from those where it was initially disbursed, market forces will eventually drive the UBI money in that direction.

That ease comes at the cost of inefficiency of expenditure. The best system would efficiently spend money allocate it where it is most needed and assume it gets there eliminate bureaucratic efficiencies, but logistical errors in a system do not warrant an entire systemic overhaul.

81702642-a767-4a9a-ba70-654baf933586

I believe that the Strikeout ALS Ice Water Challenge is not actually accomplishing anything, but instead is just a way for people to feel good about themselves without actually making an impact. I don't believe that challenging people to pour ice water over top of themselves helps the cause, and that people are not going to donate simply because they were challenged. I believe that one of the only reasons that people take part in the ice water challenge is to be accepted by their peers, and not actually make a difference towards combating ALS. . I also believe that people should not be shamed into charitable works, but that's another matter

I think that the "Strikeout ALS Ice Water Challenge" is not doing any good, but is instead just a stunt.

01e4e2fd-5a2d-409f-8a4d-e8fd4a851c68

If you have been anywhere on Youtube in the past 4 to 5 years, you have witnessed the rise of prank videos, and we are all right now witnessing the fall. So many are fake, dumb, or just not funny in the least. A genre of pranks that got popular were Pranks in the hood videos, many of which racked up millions of views. Many of these videos consist of either Insulting people Causing monetary damage destruction of property Causing physical harm Many of the Youtubers who did or still do these types of videos are upper middle class or above, and the vast majority are white. The population of the hoods they go to in order to shoot these videos mainly consists of black or latino people, most of which are on the poorer end of the socioeconomic scale. Going back to 2 on the list above, many of the people that they do these pranks on have little money, and when these Youtubers, for example, step on someone's Jordans, the person is understandably angry after all, those shoes might be one of the most expensive nicest things they own. While I recognize that buying expensive accessories isn't the most financially responsible thing to do, it's their money and they can do what they want with it. In regards to 1 and 3, those are both things that are not acceptable to do, and therefore the people being pranked are understandably mad at either being insulted or assaulted. Most of these videos are edited so that it makes the black people look like violent thugs and it makes the white person in front of the camera look like the victim. This portrayal could be detrimental to potential viewers thoughts biases towards people of color, and the pranks are overall just unfunny. TL DR White Youtubers who film pranks in the hood are making black people look like thugs and in the process victimizing themselves.

"Pranks in the hood" are just white people victimizing themselves

59ab160a-f3f0-4267-bb99-f6d0e0725a3d

Epicurus put it best: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

If God was really all powerful, he would be able to prevent all evil.

e021e41a-07e2-4cdf-98d8-d55b7b6f46bd

From what I understand, the Christian God is all powerful and all knowing. And yet suffering, disease, genocide, etc. exist. The existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful God to permit them. Therefore, God must permit these hardships for some reason. There is no reason to test humans since God is all knowing. Also God made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how God intended, else he would have made them different. I can only conclude that there either is no God, or that there is a God not worthy of admiration and praise.

Even if the Christian God existed, it would not be worthy of praise and worship

3abc4adc-9faa-4082-90af-af535d2d248a

Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. I am not a native english speaker, so sorry for any grammatical and vocabulary related mistake that i make. The principal that any accused is innocent until proven guilty through trials by the court, is a common concept among our society. This principal exists as a way to protect the accuse's right as a human being, as being accused of something that he she have or have not commit is very severe and may imply a hefty consequence of the individual as well as its family and friends. Furthermore, it may ruin a persons dignity as a human being, this is because in this informational era, where news can easily be searched up and identity and privacy are virtually non existent, being accused of something can rightfully ruin a persons life, as persons such as employers may view the record as a source of bad reputation despite that one is not convicted. However, this is not about the criminal justice systems way of dealing with things, but how the internet should behave, or rather a code of ethics for the internet. I believe that the internet should self imply a rule of innocence until guilty when accusing anyone of anything. This idea is inspired by the the Gosu incident of being accused of cheating in r leagueoflegends . The tl dr of the incident is that a streamer named gosu has been accused of cheating due to some admittedly dodgy movements, which later have been half debunked by the possibility of just the game being buggy with terrain and traps. IN the thread where he has been exposed, people instantly jumped to the conclusion that he is cheating or scripting and started calling him out out of hatred or such. I fundamentally believe such actions are wrong, as if there are other explanations to such events, such as the game just being buggy, or viual glitch etc. One should not immediately jump to the conclusion of the worst possible event for the individual, and should wait until the authority, that is riot employees that investigate such incidents to confirm or deny things, until then one should refrain from spouting hateful comments saying 'I used like to like his channel or anything of the like. Furthermore, from the threads, i learned that gosu was and is in depression and not 100 sure i believe he has expressed once that he wants to commit suicide before . ANd therefore such acts without even officials or professionals commenting on such topic, just random people on the internet hating on an individual, may possibly drive a depressed person insane, or even committing suicide. Furthermore, even if he later on is proved that he did not script, his reputation on the internet as a streamer will forever be tarnished, which as streaming is one of his income source, this is no different then lowering his income, due to an incident that he may have no control over. I do not know if he did or did not script or cheat, and i don't think it matters either way. I want to argue that the tarnishing of reputation on the internet is at least of the similar magnitude as being wrongfully accused on the physical world, as firstly it damages a persons mentality and being forever represented as a laughing stock, secondly may hurt a persons income, as seen in the gosu incident and various online incident, and thirdly and the most important part, may take someones life out, there are quite a lot of cases showcasing online bullying, can cause the victim to develop suicidal tendencies. ANd yes, i do consider the accusation of anything, before sufficient proof by either officials or professionals to be a case of bullying. Therefore, with such severe and significant damages done to any one who is accused, one should refrain from mindlessly following the 'hive mind' and accusing anyone or anything they deem as unjust, and have a mentality of 'innocent until proven guilty', and stop using the excuse that 'this is not a criminal trial, blah blah blah', as the consequences to the individual you are playfully accusing of can cause catastrophic events to said individual and ruin their life forever. Edit gt In that case i would view people who cite respected sources, and develop logical conclusion to situations as reputable, anyone can just spout non sense, but those who have researched and done thorough investigation on matters, and citing sources to their research are much more trust worthy then those just blindly follow the crowd. And even if they say anything, people should constrain themselves as their conclusion can and may be challenged when new information surface or old information emerges. Despite my belief that authoritative figures should be the one coming to conclusion, there are also cases where such is impossible, thus i include this paragraph i wrote below, however, i still stand by that ones that are knowledgeable in such topic, done thorough research through reputable sources, and is logical in their process of coming to conclusion should be the base line of any conclusion people come to, and should be sowhen determining someones guilt of anything

The principal that one is innocent until proven guilty should not be limited in the criminal justice setting but also applied as a common sense in the internet.

8e28ab8b-dbf8-4060-b989-a9ce147f0ecc

The expansion would allow Heathrow to compete with major airports in Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam

Expanding Heathrow Airport is beneficial for the UK in the long term.

1f01f130-fa6b-47cb-95b9-4af5f7ec0042

US Ambassador to the UN said on NPR on September 22nd, 2011: "they want a state and they want a state that has defined borders, that has a capital, that has the viability to deliver goods and services and benefits to the people. That's what we want to see. But there's no way to accomplish that through a vote in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. A vote here is merely a statement on a piece of paper. It doesn't change anything on the ground for the Palestinian people the day after.6

UN vote is just paper; it doesn't change anything on ground.

86a3f501-ab4e-42a3-be4f-4c5edade96c1

At the start of my college career, I was actually considering pursuing a mathematics major or minor. I took the introduction calculus sequence, a discrete math course, and joined the Math Club. I would even meetup for lunch or coffee with professors to hear about their research. Initially, I hoped math would be an enriching pursuit giving me a profound insight into the underlying nature of reality sounds crazy . But eventually, I discovered, in practice, math is just a dry and boring mechanical subject. There’s a reason why so many kids abhorrently resent math. It’s inherently a very boring subject, even putting poor teaching aside. Math exists in an abstract world devoid of both humanity and reality. Low level math is simply an exercise of computation. Just plugging in useless numbers into formulas and getting out more useless numbers. Sounds super fun right? Higher level math consists of painfully logical proofs, written in by far the most esoteric and pretentious language possible, consisting of otherworldly symbols and an exclusive syntax known by few. Please, go to a library and open a real math book, then tell me this is an interesting subject. Maybe at a superficial, qualitative level math has a few interesting points, but personally, I just can’t see how anyone could enjoy the bleak lifestyle of grinding away on proofs in some detached reality. To its core, math is simply a lifeless tool applied by other far more interesting subjects, such as physics, engineering, and computer science. Whereas math puts forward seemingly useless puzzles, these subjects use math to propose questions with so much more depth and interest, with an actual bearing on reality. In all honesty, I believe these applied subjects are even better for honing ones’ analytical skills compared to math, due to their less idealized conditions. Also, these subjects come along with so much more practicality, allowing one to have substantially more power to change the world. After doing some introspection, I realized the main reason I pursued mathematics was because I was kind of good at it I prided myself on knowing the material thoroughly and achieving high scores on tests. Nothing really compares to the potent satisfaction of having a subject that you excel in. Delusional, I convinced myself math was actually interesting, ignoring its ever so obvious flaws. I believe the majority of its pursuers fall into this trap, wrongly pursuing a subject simply because they’re good at it and continually having to justify why math is so “awesome beautiful” to validate their possibly flawed pursuit. When I talk about math, I’m talking about it more so in its pure abstract sense. If anyone can shed some light on what makes math a good interesting subject, go for it.

Math Is a Boring Subject

226db8f6-d68b-4d26-a726-d10e951f774e

It is literally possible to have faith in a non-creationist religion and thus have the same validity as the creationist claim, of which both cannot be right.

Faith is not a reliable path to truth, and thus claims dependent solely on faith should not be taught as factually correct.

e795fccf-9d66-49a4-a4bf-2043c315b6a9

I'm vegan, my fiance is not. However, we're planning to serve an vegan meal at our wedding which I confident will be very tasty, and will have relatively few exotic dishes with weird names that would scare people away . His family found out about our plans, uproar ensued, with some of his extended relatives now saying they won't come if we don't serve meat, and that we should stop forcing our opinions on them . I'm vegan for ethical reasons I can't imagine celebrating my wedding by slaughtering probably dozens of animals and spending hundreds of dollars supporting an industry I think is immoral. My reaction to the folks who would rather miss our wedding than going one meal without meat? Fuck 'em. No ones morals ethics require them to eat meat at all meals. If they were going to a Japanese wedding but didn't like sushi, would they get all bent out of shape or just deal with it? Would they be mad at a Jewish person wanting a Kosher wedding? But both my mom and my fiance are asking me to try to see their side. So here I am. I know how many of you guys feel about vegans in general so I figure if anyone would have convincing arguments for why I should serve meat at my wedding it would be you. EDIT Thanks for the responses so far. A few points of clarification My fiance does eat meat, but doesn't expect me to buy cook touch it for him. We're completely vegan at home, but he still occasionally orders meat when he we go out. He eats A LOT less meat now than he did before, and is more conscious about what he eats in general. I agree it's technically arbitrary, but I do draw a line between a meat dish once or twice a month and looking out over a sea of chicken breast and steak. I have never been vocal or aggressive in moralizing my veganism. I've gone to holiday dinners where I quietly ate my steamed veggies. I'm not even sure half his family knew I was vegan. I didn't make a big deal about the wedding food his mom only found out when she was inquiring about the menu because of a cousin with allergies. Also, while this thread may in fact change my view on whether or not to have the vegan wedding just hearing the strong opinions makes me realize that no one is going to be happy, and u chocomele makes a good point on how I can do it without feeling like I'm totally compromising my morals , nothing said has yet changed my view that this is fundamentally a ridiculous request. I don't mean to call any of you ridiculous, but to truly change my view, I think someone will have to convince me of at least one of the following A Simply serving someone a vegan meal constitutes making the event about proving a point , passing moral judgement and not showing them respect . B Somebody choosing to serve a plant based meal is somehow fundamentally different than choosing lamb over steak or chocolate cake over vanilla, and therefore worth getting offended about. C Asking a meat eater to go one meal without meat is the moral equivalent to asking a vegan to serve meat i.e., slaughter animals and support an industry she finds immoral EDIT2 UPDATE I'm out for the rest of the day, so I might not get to respond much more, but I will keep checking in. Thank you again for everyone who has commented. First, my fiance and I have worked out the following plan We are going to take his mother to the restaurant that would cater, and have her try some of the dishes we are planning. Hopefully, she will like them and talk to the extended family that is upset mostly her brother and family . In addition, my fiance is going to reach out and explain the significance of the restaurant to us and why we chose it. If neither of those work, we will have a single meat option, sourced as sustainably and cruelty free as possible details TBD Secondly, in terms of despite the flippant tone in my post, my main view wasn't There is no way I will have a vegan wedding but Expecting a vegan to serve meat is a ridiculous i.e., an unreasonable request . Whether or not to accommodate an unreasonable request is a separate issue than whether or not the request is reasonable. u maddawg579 and u marinoxx are the commenters who have most nudged my His family is unreasonable and close minded but life is about compromised so maybe I'll deal toward I can at least understand why having meat at a wedding would be important to them and therefore a reasonable request .

I think expecting a vegan to serve meat at their wedding is ridiculous.

b45d99c1-e028-457a-b9cf-9d2bc83d63ef

Hello, I would like to make the case that Middle Easterners need to speak out against Islam as a whole instead of speaking out only against fundamentalism while still stating something like Islam doesn't support this . My main reasoning is that there aren't specific ideologies or verses from the Koran that one could isolate into blaming the extremists. The Koran was based off the writings of a warlord, while it was probably incredibly progressive for it's time, it's still an outdated book morally and by definition has some ideals that are inherently wrong in today's age. Islam is deeply embedded in religious loyalty, by definition religious loyalty is not rational nor intellectual. It has been proven over and over again that religion can, and a lot of times will stunt intellectual progress. I understand that moderate Muslims don't condone the actions of the fundamentalists, but there has to be some acknowledgement that at least the motivations for the attacks are partially stemming from Islam. Yes, we all have our own interpretations, but at some point the content of the actual text has to be identified for being inherently wrong. In short, it's impossible to value religious belief in one's culture while expecting moderation to permeate throughout the culture . Why? Well having a devoutly religious culture promotes a hotbed for fundamentalism. This isn't just Islam, this is all religion. We saw this with Christianity as well. Christianity had to go through an intense period of secularization instead of just reforming to a more moderate form . They needed to create actual governments that were secular to fundamentally start progress. Islam needs to go through a similar fashion. Moderate Muslims simply stating this isn't the true Islam is not good enough anymore, because quite frankly they are losing the ideological war. Polls can be deceiving, but it's no mistake that even a culture of moderate Islam will still create an atmosphere that breeds fundamentalism and violence. For example, you will see that many Muslims still think that stoning of adulterers is acceptable How can one fight against fundamentalism but then go on to profess that they support stoning adulterers? The culture as a whole has to divorce itself from Islam and turn more secular to actually make any progress. The idea of saying this isn't the real Islam isn't enough, and it's the globally strong religious belief that has been implanted into Muslim cultural that creates the circumstances for radicalism.

Muslims speaking out against terrorist attacks aren't enough if they still preach that Islam is legimate. The only way to actually fight extremism is for people of Middle Eastern descent to concretely become more secular and speak against Islam as a whole.

dba7c49f-f5b4-456d-bc28-46fce10c0be3

Most athletics programs do not make money, so the burden is on the students in the form of higher tuition. Why should people seeking education be subsidizing an athletic team especially when the cost of education is ballooning? Athletic programs sap resources from schools that could go towards improving education, giving more financial assistance to students that need it, etc. Many college athletes who otherwise wouldn't have any hope of qualifying for a school get in because they're good at a game. School acceptance should be an issue of academic merit. The slot of an unqualified athlete would be better given to someone more deserving academically. Athletes are generally held to lower standards or given leniency academically, making a joke out of their degree, releasing unqualified graduates, and diluting the academic reputation of schools. Everyone should be on an even playing field huge pun . I do think there is a place for athletics at schools, but only as 'hobby' undertaken by otherwise qualified students. If they get it on academic merit like everyone else and decide to play sports while keeping up with their studies, that is ok. This alone would make programs much cheaper and less of a drain on school resources, but I think programs should also have to be self financing, which would mean huge cuts in expenditure for almost all programs. Edit Sources on cost gt Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012. Of that group, 16 also received some type of subsidy — and 10 of those 16 athletics departments received more subsidy money in 2012 than they did in 2011. gt Only seven other athletics programs at public universities broke even or had net operating income on athletics each year from 2005 2009, according to data provided by USA Today to the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics for which I consult . gt The median expense per student athlete in 2009 was 76,000. gt Average assistance that each university gave to the athletic department was 10.2 million gt A recent NCAA report stated that only 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision made money. gt 12 of college athletic programs are profitable.

College athletics programs are ridiculous and have no place in the education system

8b8f190e-c6cb-4b17-a9d3-7bf822aa20e0

I believe if you don't support universal healthcare, you should be against the government helping flooded people in Houston. Along with my experience of people debating against universal healthcare, I'm also taking this list as a help Let's play the devil's advocate here If the government agencies are never efficient, we should let the free market save the flooded and bill the people rescued. Cost control of rescue missions will be better if the driving forces of the rescue operations are competition, innovation and profit motives. Patients should have a way to choose which treatment they can get according to what they can afford, and it should be the same for people in floods and rescue missions. Costs are increased when patients don't curb their doctor visits, and likewise they might not show restraint when asking for help from the rescue missions if they know they won't be billed for it afterwards. People who take care of themselves by doing sport, eating well and not living in areas liable to flooding should not have to pay the burden for the others. Government is likely to pass regulations against smoking, eating and not evacuating places with a tempest forecast, which will lead to a loss of personal freedoms. Clarification this looks like a double standard question which are usually disallowed, so let me clarified my stance. I think arguments against universal healthcare don't make any sense and this is perfectly illustrated by natural disasters, as they can also apply but sound completely absurd. I'll consider my view changed if you are able to convince me that this analogy doesn't hold because there are deep and important reasons why saving people in Houston for free is more justified than having universal healthcare, from an anti universal healthcare perspective. I'll also consider my view changed if you are somehow able to convince me that we should let the free market save people in Houston. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing

arguments against universal healthcare also apply to helping people in Houston

be8e8dc2-4dbf-492e-89cc-6aaced3587f6

Animals dominating other animals is natural, thus humans using animals to their own ends is not unethical.

The well-being of men has more value than the well-being of animals.

71e47771-7e8a-4319-8a6c-eb81fc85def6

Nobody can provide a solution to Brexit, as there are three main groups who need to agree the EU, the government and Parliament. x200B Whichever solution is ultimately accepted has negatives so we need to pick the one with the smallest negatives. This is to align Northern Ireland to the EU and keep it half in in terms of trade and travel. x200B Checks on goods from NI reaching the UK will then be done at ports airports. If they come from NI, no tariffs, if they come from the EU, apply tariffs. x200B The main negative of which I'm aware will be that NI British citizens will have to show passports to get to the rest of the UK. However, this is mainly a problem for Unionists, who number about 1 million, and in my opinion, a small price to pay for sorting out Brexit. x200B Why has this option been largely ignored so far? Probably because the Democratic Unionist Party has been propping up the government. Also people believe it will make NI more separate from the UK this is already a region so separate it bans gay marriage. x200B EDIT Clarification I'm proposing NI align to the EU in terms of a customs union, not to create a separate country to put it in the EU.

The solution to Brexit is a "border" in the Irish Sea

e2ab8bae-8146-46e8-bc8c-e0cdcc750064

Studies show that, in violence between couples, "women’s physical violence is more likely than men’s violence to be motivated by self-defense and fear, whereas men’s physical violence is more likely than women’s to be driven by control motives".

Women are still subject to disproportionate and gendered physical violence in many instances.

3973f9ad-a96e-4629-b50c-920f518a328a

Whenever I try to take advantage of a loophole I am asked what would the world look like if everyone would take advantage of said circumstance. This is a terrible argument. The reason I would want to do anything is because of its apparent benefit to me. If other people also take advantage of an opportunity and I still get my benefit everything if fine. If after I start other people take advantage and later cause me a loss that shouldn't stop me from receiving benefits today. What if everyone did it is a terrible counter argument gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing

"What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument

182e2775-a99f-44c7-86da-837d367f8603

Before I get into the meat of my view, I want to clarify some things. This is not a statement on the feasibility of rail in America, nor a statement on the ability of it to work anywhere else. This is specifically addressing the TCR, with its current route and current proposed endpoints in downtown Dallas and downtown Houston. Time Savings The current drive from the center of Houston to the center of Dallas is about 3 hours 45 minutes, give or take, depending on traffic. The proposed routing for the bullet train will cut that time to 90 minutes or so. This is a time savings of about 2 hours, 15 minutes, assuming you start the trip both trips at the station. However, the traffic getting to central Dallas and central Houston is terrible. It is not difficult to believe that the drive to and from the train station could be an extra 15 minutes to an hour. Downtown Dallas from Fort Worth is often an hour drive. By the time you even make it to the station from Fort Worth, you could be 70 miles down the road to Houston. It is not difficult to believe that delays, security constraints, traffic getting to the station, or unknown reasons could eliminate any advantage in time. Cost of tickets The TCR site indicates themselves that the cost of a ticket is going to be comparable to the airlines. I see two conceivable problems with this. The first is that airlines will respond to the competition and drop prices to compete, and price the TCR out. Current one way tickets between the cities are running about 100 apiece, one way. The other problem is that people who are currently flying between the two cities on a regular basis are not likely to give up the rewards programs that airlines offer. I travel for work about 40 percent of the time. I am able to take my whole family on a vacation every year using the hotel rewards and airline miles. TCR rewards, if they had them, would just be more trips on the TCR. Cost of the train The train is estimated to cost 10 BILLION, USD. That is a massive investment of money. For comparison, the top of the line 737 900ER retails at just over 100 million. The planes also have the flexibility of flying from place to place, and not a committed route. Weather There is weather that planes and cars cannot operate in, and that gives the train points. However, it is conceivable that a track of this length would have serious problems with tornadoes hitting and damaging the tracks on a yearly basis. The Last Mile Problem Texas, especially the Houston and Dallas areas, are notorious for suburban sprawl with a serious absence of public transportation. While Dallas does have DART, and a decent bus system, I still see many people viewing their end to end journeys as similar in time to driving. Self Driving cars We do not have these yet, but it is conceivable that we could have them by 2022, the soonest the train is likely to be built. This would be the nail in not only the TCR coffin, but most airlines routes between the cities as well. If someone can do door to door in 3.5 hours, have a car at both ends of their destination, and be able to do it for cheaper than the airlines and the train, then why would they take the train or fly? I think HSR is going to be limited to longer routes, between cities with comprehensive public transportation networks by the time the TCR is built. The only remotely possible way I see this train being built is if Southwest airlines develops the concept and routes the train between Hobby and Love Field, and integrates it into their current network. This would address a considerable amount of the issues above.

The Texas Central Railway will fail as a business venture, and it is unlikely to be built.

ea9acae3-6911-4f6e-9fff-e2d32c9039a0

A survey found that films featuring cats generated $1.3 bn more in revenue compared with those featuring dogs.

Cats have been featured heavily in movies, TV shows, and plays.

76e5c6f7-5689-47f2-944c-bbd565a20437

This has been bothering me for quite a while now. This started when I was studying in the UK for a while, where I would see a plethora of members of the islamic community support the implementation of sharia law, and I happened to read about some communities that would go as far as have their own sharia patrols making sure that sharia law was enforced in their area. Now I know that Sharia literally means law and that there's a variety of mild to extreme adaptations, however this is not the point of my argument my logic behind this is that in the same way that I can't be a vigilante, have to abide by the laws of the land and have to go through official channels to report and solve any problems I might have, no one should be able to impose a particular set of rules on top of the country's law whether part of their religion or not. Also, in a similar fashion, I am quite bothered by communities rallying to ban alcohol as it is forbidden by their religion, or refusing to handle pork and alcohol at supermarkets. My point is, you should accept fundamental concepts such as customs, consumer habits and laws of the country in which you live, or to which you emigrate.

Muslims shouldn't attempt to enforce sharia law and refuse to handle pork and alcohol at supermarkets.

7d621db2-b15c-40f1-be27-07ee5fd86a0a

After the election was over many people who supported Trump made the case that Bernie Sanders voters were responsible for swinging Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Trump. The main argument posited by those on the left made the case that it was the result of an unusually high turnout of Republicans, typically those from Rural parts of the states. We now have official research done in a massive survey of around 50,000 people, by CCES that shows approximately 12 of Sanders supporters voted for Trump. Michigan 598,943 people voted for Sanders during the primary 8 of those support Trump approximately 47,915 votes Trump's margin of victory in Michigan was 10,704 votes Pennsylvania 731,881 people voted for Sanders during the primary around 16 support Trump giving us approximately 117,100 votes Trump's margin of victory was 44,292 votes Wisconsin 570,192 people votes for Sanders in the primary. 9 support Trump giving us 51,317 voters Trump's margin of victory was 22,748 votes. All this seems to indicate that the view posited by those that support the President is correct that former Sanders supporters voted for Trump and is likely the cause of those states turning red. Thanks

Former Bernie Sanders voters are responsible for swinging former blue states in the Rust Belt.

bbf31c27-ef81-49ac-8f9e-bf2b1855673b

We cannot communicate with most species on Earth in a meaningful way, hence it is hard to expect that we would fare better in contact with any extra-terrestrial species.

Aliens and humans might simply be so alien to each other that communication is impossible, as hard as humans may try.

6d3e27a4-06c5-41a0-9df9-19cd789c701d

In France, where doctors are the final decision makers for treatment decisions, parents appeared more satisfied with their communication and relationship experiences with the doctors than parents in countries where decision making was more varied.

Parents will be better off when they are not forced to make critical decisions for their children.

7ca33f73-cb13-41d3-ab63-c4a2089f9477

Churches retain autonomy in their affairs by being able to keep their financial assets without taxation, and the government is free from undue religious influence. If governments taxed church organizations, churches would deserve greater leeway in advocating for how to use their tax and demanding greater representation for their political views.

Under the separation of church and state, a tax exemption benefits both churches and governments.

2c9f224a-a84f-47c6-8314-4b27bfe0dadd

At the level of a single cell, metal ions are associated with ribozymes and protein metalloenzymes and are thus involved in the stabilization of secondary and tertiary protein structures.

Ionic bonds allow amino acids to fold causing enzymes to interact with the amino acids and form proteins.

37591199-da83-461e-8d29-5c5e1bc1e43f

Birthrates are falling all across the globe: in the 1970s women had around 6 children and today they have just 2.7 on average, and in some places only 1.

World crude birth rates have decreased in the last decades and are predicted to keep decreasing in the near future.

c5fc65c2-f2f7-4ae3-90de-a2ee9b4b731c

MMT, as I've seen it in the wild, makes the seemingly radical claim that government budgets should not be limited by the supply of money. In this view, today's governments are un necessarily scared of taking on debt, because they will always be able to pay off that debt by printing money. At a time when almost all governments are seriously concerned with managing their balance sheets, to the point of imposing harsh austerity measures, MMT claims that their fears are blown all out of proportion. In truth, according to MMT advocates, governments actually have much more spending power that they just don't use. Often, MMT theory is dressed up in a lot of flowery language about the nature of money. To me, this usually sounds like a hyped up version of what I learned in ECON 101, that money is a social construct used to facilitate exchange and that fiat money, in particular, is driven by the public trust in the sound management of the money supply by government plus a bit of coercion on the side, because you need it to pay your taxes . I'll admit I don't have a lot of patience for this aspect of MMT and haven't read deeply into it, so maybe I misunderstand. I'm a leftist economist myself, and I agree that the harsh austerity measures we've seen in many European countries are actually un necessary. But mainstream economists can convincingly make this argument without appealing to MMT. At the same time, they acknowledge that in some circumstances, austerity is important, and governments should restrain spending to pay down debt. Before, when I've confronted MMT theorists by saying that their policies would radically drive up inflation, they say that I've simply misunderstood. They know perfectly well that for governments to print money will cause inflation to rise, and that it could lead to a hyperinflationary cycle. But in that case, I don't see what MMT adds that I didn't learn in university. The trade off between printing money and creating inflation is well known. Economists already take a nuanced approach to this issue central banks around the world will print money to buy government bonds in certain circumstances quantitative easing , effectively financing the public debt with new money. This risks creating inflation, which is why they take a cautious approach, and you could certainly argue that they've been too cautious. Maybe you think central bankers should be much more aggressive with QE. But you can make that argument entirely with classical economics, without introducing a radical new monetary theory. I hope my position's clear. Change my mind gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing

Modern Monetary Theory MMT doesn't add anything new to the field of economics

7c80d9a2-a3bf-4d17-a4ac-e7f8bedb4664

A conservative estimate puts the asteroid at 6km in diameter. This is contrasted with a high end estimate of 50 meters for the ones the Star Destroyers destroy. This is a difference of over 120x times size and mass!

The Asteroid in "The Pegasus" is significantly larger than any the Star Destroyers Target

4353e815-e2a4-4579-9370-1b38881d36ae

There seems to be a sudden surge in politicians warming up to the idea of universal basic income programs henceforth referred to as UBIs . UBIs work in one of two ways either everyone receives a basic income from the government which I will call uniform UBI , or the government sets a base amount of income that everyone should receive, and everyone who falls under that income level is compensated up to it which I will call minimum UBI . The argument in favour of such programs is that they give poorer families the resources they need to lift themselves out of poverty, and can help to subsidize limited budgets for poor families, who are often in need of a boost in financial capital. And while I do agree with helping the poor and reducing inequality, I disagree that this is the way to do it. Subsidizing a persons income doesn't change the fact that wealth inequality is systemic, and precedes income inequality by effecting the choices available to different people. To clarify, wealth and income are different wealth is your total asset holdings your house, your car, etc , whereas income is what you make from labour. I argue that it's in fact better to tackle systemic wealth inequality than income inequality. Wealth inequality can be dealt with through improved social programs that aim to either directly give, subsidize, or otherwise help people get access to their daily needs. Such programs could take form in many ways homelessness could be solved by buying the homeless housing or by improving staffing mental health facilities, thus subsidizing their living costs and helping them get back on their feet. A lack of education could be improved by fully subsidized trade, college, and university education. Disparities in health between the rich and the poor could be dealt with through improving national healthcare programs, and introducing new coverage where it's needed, with a focus on poorer families with fewer wealth assets. The list goes on. Of course, there are common objections to these ideas, some of which I'd like to preemptively argue against now Aren't these things the same? No. Subsidizing a persons income is different than affecting the prices that they face, and theoretically have different effects on people's behaviour. In particular, income subsidies are prone to make people work less, whereas price subsidies typically have an unambiguous effect. For more info, google the Slutsky equation. But public infrastructure and facilities are lower quality than private ones They really aren't, and they don't have to be either. There's this misconception that public healthcare is a bad idea because the quality of everyone's healthcare will decrease this attitude is particularly prevalent in the US . But a vast majority of people in other countries Canada, UK, France, etc would say that they support public social healthcare, if not because it makes their own lives easier, but because it is fairer. If we assume that the interest is in fixing inequality in general terms, then is it not worth it to ask whether or not we could be making life services fairer? Also, I think that exposure to poor public services tends to turn people off to the idea of increasing funding for them, without realizing that their experience is probably influenced by current levels of funding. It's entirely possible that increased funding and improved staffing regulations could make public services more efficient and user friendly. A national pharmacare program would make country 's pharmaceutical industry less competitive Why? Someone is still paying for pharmaceuticals, and the government wouldn't necessarily take over pharmaceutical companies themselves, just make their products available to everyone. There's no evidence that public healthcare makes healthcare industries less competitive. Canada for example has a public healthcare system that covers almost all inpatient and some outpatient care, but still has a thriving medical research industry, and was to thank for battling the recent East African Ebola crisis. You are welcome to refer me to any peer reviewed empirical papers that say otherwise though. These things would be a lot harder than UBI Probably, but that doesn't mean UBI will solve any problems, only that it's a convenient fix now . It's like putting a bandage on an open flesh wound it doesn't prevent that wound from needing stitches. It's the same with UBI programs covering up the results of wealth inequality with income redistribution doesn't change the fact that wealth inequality is still occurring. Only tackling the problem directly stitching the wound so to speak would work in the long run. But wealth and income aren't independent of one another income redistribution could implicitly cause wealth redistribution. But how large would income subsidization have to be before it created a significant wealth effect, and how sustainable would the effect be? The problem I foresee with this argument is that income redistribution would have to be sustained for a long period of time in order to effect the desired changes to wealth, and even then you'd be battling things like intergenerational wealth flows through inheritance, difference of opportunities between rich poor kids, etc , inequality in public sector funding between rich and poor school districts, eg , etc. It seems stronger to say that wealth redistribution through social programs would be better suited to directly target problems of wealth inequality, than relying on income redistribution to implicitly do something. Please note I am not here to debate the merits of government redistribution, only the best way for it to happen. That being said, I'm not interested in arguments trying to dissuade me from the idea of redistributionary methods. TL DR It's better to subsidize crucial services and commodities, and to tackle wealth inequality, than it is to subsidize people's income and target income inequality. This is because wealth flows between generations and has a bigger impact on income than income does on wealth. Concerns that public programs would be too low quality are unsubstantiated and self affirming.

Universal basic income UBI programs won't fix the problems of wealth inequality, and shouldn't be used to supplement social welfare initiatives that do.

1aaeeefb-3f89-42ed-b7e9-6176d9906dd5

Facebook profiles should be seen as a tool for job-seekers looking to expose their social-side and character to employers. Candidates can create good representations of their character on their profiles, and benefit from employer exposure to this information.

Facebook can be used very effectively by candidates to showcase themselves to employers:

860cdfc7-5ff0-4332-ad80-ccb16a950aa0

Teens are more easily influenced by others and more prone to impulsive behavior than adults.

Politicians can more easily manipulate or 'bribe' children and teens than adults.

c45b2cb3-dac2-4257-88ac-b989e14ca295

I don't see anything wrong with it. There has been single issue voting religious right voting for a candidate because of their stance on abortion rights, liberal left voting for a candidate because of their stance on gay marriage but this seems to have been emphasized far less. When Obama was running, for example, it was his stance on gay rights and women's rights that was pushed quite often. That being said, I feel like it would be important for a woman to be in the White House. It's 2016 and the US is one of the few countries that has not had a female president or equivalent, even Pakistan, an Islamic country, has elected a female prime minister. I think that having a woman president would be inspiring to young and old girls everywhere. I believe it would influence more women to believe in themselves, to believe that they can do whatever they want and become whomever they desire, because we now have have had a woman president, the head of our country. I don't see anything wrong with voting for Hillary because she's a woman, as I consider having a woman president to be an important issue, and I don't see how voting for a woman president because she's a woman would be any more controversial than voting for candidate X because they support abortion rights don't support abortion rights. PS. I voted for Jill Stein last election.

There's nothing wrong with voting for Hillary because she's a woman.

2663c955-e521-4b6e-9bb4-2e9ba5b36db0

For those of you who haven't seen it yet Front page Post The default settings are jarring with the card view. But, if you select classic view, it feels pretty similar to old Reddit. Except, it's much less cluttered, the color scheme is is easier on the eyes, and it makes better use of white space. Plus, it's much more responsive looks better at different widths try resizing the width of your browser window, and compare to how old Reddit looks . I am a RES user, and have lost some functionality by switching to the new design for example, expando doesn't work for some images. I believe these are just bugs that will get worked out eventually.

Reddit's new design isn't bad.

ac78e0cc-e360-466b-850a-ac2bfe593fbf

In a sermon by William McLellin in the presence of Hyrum Smith and likely based on information Hyrum provided, "the plates were minutely described as being connected with rings in the shape of the letter D, which facilitated the opening and shutting of the book." Illinois Patriot, Sept. 16, 1831

Witnesses of the golden plates are inconsistent as to the nature of their binding rings.

84151e60-b207-44d5-b663-a18f47169a8f

There is much controversy over the use of midazolam - used as a sedative prior to lethal injections being administered - as there have been multiple cases where the drug dosage has been unsuccessful in sufficiently anaesthetising the prisoner, leaving them to feel the full effect of the execution drugs.

Lethal injection is the most widely-used method of execution in the U.S. and is very painful

65587071-3b48-4671-8ab1-8b4b78fa490b

Control implies dominion. And an AGI could have more resources or faster access to those resources of forcing submission than humans do. Especially since most technology is interlinked through the internet.

An AGI would be impossible to control or regulate once its abilities or reasoning surpasses our understanding.

b2f336e7-80a0-488f-9105-6fc1764dc4a6

I really like my best friend, but I can't discuss any current events with him anymore without him going OMFG ITS NOT REAL, STAGED HOAX CRISIS ACTORS OMFG Like OK, he's a smart guy, I might actually listen to him if he just said for example, that a single news story was staged set up. But literally EVERY story that hits the news, he is claiming is fake and staged. From the existence of ISIS, to that girl that shot the guy with the UZI, to Ferguson, to the Boston Bombing, to Newtown, to ISIS, to Russia invading Ukraine he literally denies anything the news says like he lives in the Truman show or something. I get that the media put a spin on things for propaganda, but holy shit, he seems to think that no bad ever happens and is only perpetrated by the new world order as an act. It's really putting a strain on our friendship when literally anything we talk about gets spun back to that, it's become a religion for him almost. He just so happens to be a mid 40s single male, with a STEM degree from a prestigious university, but works as a cab driver. He NEVER used his degree, and I think he subconsciously feels guilty about it and tries to console himself that he was better off not pursuing economic success because the game was all rigged anyway. Other conspiracy theory guys I meet seem to all fit this same profile, suffering some kind of mid to late life crisis and bitter about income inequality, eat up stuff that Alex Jones spits out like candy. Little do they realize that Alex Jones is of the 1 himself and is nothing more than a salesmen of survival gear he has affiliate links on his site to a bunch of vendors who sell survivalist gear . Again, I would at least entertain some of these theories but everyone I meet whose into these seems to think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories are for the most part a way for bitter people to feel better about their lives by convincing themselves the system is all fixed anyway.

f189e9a8-bbc3-4257-9919-310717ccd41b

Capital punishment is not a punishment in its whole meaning. It is not meant to make person suffer like actual punishment does. It does actually opposite of that. It removes them from society like life sentence does, but unlike life sentence it has no long term cost and does not inflict long term suffering.

Absent capital punishment, life imprisonment would be the only choice, which can be equally, if not more, cruel.

2391255e-be96-46bb-a647-5421486207bc

According to the World Economic Forum, women have become essential to a competitive workplace and the success of companies; Empowering women to participate equally in the global economy could add $28 trillion in GDP growth by 2025.

In an age of competitiveness, not hiring qualified female employees just because they may be absent for 1/2 days a month is a poor business strategy.

4dbfafd8-3f71-4f21-a59b-ceded6264588

First of all, the missile wasn't launched by the Russian military so it's not like Putin has any direct control over the rebels. People also seem to be thinking that Putin ordered an attack on MH17 when it was most likely a freak accident. Sure Putin may have supported the rebels, but that doesn't make him directly accountable for any of the rebels' mishaps. Saying Putin is directly responsible for anything the rebels did is like saying Ronald Reagan is directly responsible for anything the Contras did. I believe the only people responsible for the shoot down are the rebels who purposefully tried to shoot down airplanes, for such an accident would be inevitable with their tactics. Also, Malaysia Airlines also shouldn't be blamed, the route had been cleared by the civil aviation authorities.

I believe Putin shouldn't be blamed for the unfortunate shooting down of Flight MH17.

8de45f4f-308b-4a7d-b6d8-c51e04911d31

The Kyoto Protocol has the potential to achieve its objectives for cutting emissions. But, this cannot be achieved without US participation, as the US is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Therefore, the US should join, and enable the Kyoto Protocol to succeed.

The Kyoto protocol cannot significantly cut emissions without the US.

09ef3b51-dd74-4a86-935d-f9a83e6b0f49

- "There is an important difference between terrorists and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists' 'rights.' The terrorist's victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike his victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary."

Terrorists relinquish most of their right to protection under the law

89285943-53d4-4a11-abeb-5a16634b56ec

Israeli Military Order 1650 entails a very broad definition of 'infiltrator'. No person without an explicit permit is allowed to stay in the West Bank.

Israeli limits to the free movement of Palestinians in the West Bank are governed by a range of Military Orders

43ece8cd-076f-4006-bb99-b8f6d085ce8a

Donald Trump's administration enjoys the enthusiastic support of Evangelical Christians who see the President enacting much of their agenda.

Donald Trump has governed America as a fairly orthodox Republican

7c7ee138-3fe9-49a4-9257-8b8c267d17ab

Human embryos cannot be regarded as equivalent to human beings on the ground that they could develop into adults. Between fifty and seventy per cent of embryos are lost naturally through failing to implant in the wall of the uterus. The potential of an embryo to develop does not itself make it human. As Peter Singer has observed, this approach would mean that every sperm and ovum should be treated as microscopic human beings. Moreover, until approximately 14 days after fertilisation, the embryo can split into two or more genetically identical embryos. How can we consider an embryo to be an ‘individual’ that lives or dies, when it could naturally develop into twins or become nothing at all?

Human embryos cannot be regarded as equivalent to human beings on the ground that they could develop...

7f4d211d-0b30-4fdb-b7c6-39a8417f0abf

If we do not make this mandatory, it's like saying it's not routine and is unimportant. Like saying, doctors shouldn't wear gloves.

The helmet obligation serves also as a recommendation and a reminder for a fellow-conscious traffic life.

d8e6c78b-f162-4df6-8a19-f47363243869

Here I go. So I discovered the subreddit r whowouldwin, and I found that almost all the time the general consensus is that Gandalf would beat Dumbledore in a fight. Let's take Gandalf the White against Dumbledore before he was cursed. The main points people try to use to advocate Gandalf is that he defeated the balrog, cleansed the king of Rohan, etc. They argue that Gandalf is essentially a god, so how could he be defeatable? Here's how. Gandalf's powers are limited. He is a god, and in his realm would be all powerful, but in his human body his strength is limited. His magic is powerful against people of his own kind such as the Naz'Ghul, which I think are basically extensions of Sauron's power, who is the same species as Gandalf , and things to do with fire. Fire is Gandalf's special magic affinity, and so this gives him some leverage against the Balrog, who is the essence of fire. However, we see many times where his power is limited. For instance, in the battle of Gondor, he slew orcs with a blade. Why did he do that? Because the lethality of his magic against things that aren't as I described is negligible. In the Hobbit, he was almost slaughtered by a group of orcs he was Grey, granted only to be saved by eagles. Dumbledore, on the other hand, is by no means weak, and could be lethal against any foe he meets. The only opponent he could not outright defeat as far as we know is Voldemort, who is the strongest dark wizard we know of. He has an array of magic at his disposal, not just fire type magic. He has an unblockable death curse at his disposal if necessary. We don't know how magic works in both worlds if they mixed, so we can only guess. Gandalf could kick Dumbledore's ass if he was allowed to use his full powers, but in Human form I don't think he just compares to Dumbledore. Anyways, a lot of this is speculation, and I may be talking out of my ass. So reddit, give me a reason to think I'm wrong.

I believe that Dumbledore would outclass Gandalf if it came down to a fight.

92d5937a-eef5-4cdc-a7cb-995c34e49bab

We generally look upon the music of the past more favourably because less of the poorer-quality music filtered through to us in the modern era such that we are widely aware of it.

There are many songs from the past that were not great.

e802c377-01c7-41c9-9e73-25ef6efb0b1f

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana, The Life of Reason - The only hope we have to protect following generations from the horror of institutionalized racism is to always remember that once it was there. Historical accuracy is like a civilization's auto-immune mechanism - remove it and all the childhood diseases will turn back to haunt us!

To avoid racially insensitive words means to avoid a discussion about racism.

7c0f682d-6258-465b-aab9-bad2a151f222

I think porn is a freedom of expression, censored porn just hurts the porn industry which may hurt the governments potential tax revenue. What are the pros and cons of censored porn? What was the law or ruling that enacted censored porn in Japan and how can it be overturned? Some people may argue censored porn is in place for the protection of children, but you could bring up the violent movies and video game debate. Why is violence allowed but not sex or porn? Others may say Japan has weird porn like tentacles or bukkake but that clearly isn't all their porn and the U.S. Europe has weird porn as well. Some may argue Japan has a conservative culture but what about Japanese youth not wanting sex anymore, maybe a uncensored porn industry could change the culture to benefit Japan? Why allow any sort of porn at all in Japan, why not just ban it all together? Would showing a crotch without a blurry strip really harm anyone more than what they already can see? And as a non Japanese citizen, I would like the option to see non censored porn, is there a way around the blurriness?

Japan should uncensor their porn

487e79b0-af4c-4f61-86c5-1fa3b60d0713

Professional and personal relationships are forged on completely different things, and respect works very differently: professional and personal degrees of respect are as different of the relationships they're associated with.

There are different factors to consider when looking at different relationships, of different sizes, and types.

dcb54ac8-24a7-4ea9-9e40-491e1f62a99b

They say that Satisfaction Expectations Reality. I finished this book and was let down, unsastisfied, because my expectations far exceeded reality. The book has received prestigious awards, and is highly spoken of by many. I believe the book is average at best. Why? Plot The plot is repetitive, boring, and predictable. At the core, a novel is about the plot, and this novel reads like you're watching a kid play a video game on easy mode. From beginning to end, Ender is playing battle games. Each time, they make the game a little harder for him, and each time, he crushes his enemy. It's a 300 page book, and it felt like 250 of the pages were focused on tactics of the battle simulations. This is not interesting. It's the same conflict recycled over and over. Conflict Speaking of conflict, the author, Orson Scott Card, breaks all the rules of writing effective conflict. Almost all conflict in the book is resolved immediately and in dominating fashion by Ender. The one redeeming quality of the book is the conflict of Ender versus the Teachers, where they beat him down until he passes out from exhaustion, and finally says I quit the game. I'm done. That is an example of conflict done right it's not resolved immediately, it actually affects the protagonist, you empathize with the character. But like I said, most of the book is a progression of battles, and when he wins every one, there's no gratification for the reader. It's like Card put little sand castles in front of Ender and has him kick them over, effortlessly, through page after page after page of disinteresting conflict. Even the bullies, though they're bigger and stronger and greater in number Ender defeats them in seemingly effortless fashion. Is Card just trying to live vicariously through a fictional character he created? Does he think he's smarter and stronger than children who bullied him in his childhood? I can think of no other explanation. Characters All of the characters are flat, two dimensional, placed obviously in certain situations as straw men for Ender to take down. There are no personalities there are no motivations. You have Bernard, Bonzo, Peter, the bullies . You have the teachers, cold and disengaged. Then you have Ender's friends who would do anything for him. None of them are flushed out. Not a single character develops, evolves, or changes over the course of the book. All of them fit into some archetype, like cardboard cutouts placed specifically as plot agents. You empathize with Ender after a time, but that's it. All others are simple, their motivations are clear. There's zero complexity to them or their relationships with Ender, with each other, with anyone. They were boring. Plot Holes Huh? moments Really, the only one is Peter and Valentine playing politics over the nets. Granted, this book was written before the internet was a real thing, so I will grant some benefit of the doubt. But still, a 14 year old boy can become Hegemon of the world influence global politics because he writes some articles in a forum somewhere? This only contributes to my hypothesis that Orson Scott Card is trying to live vicariously through these fictional characters. Ultimately, this tangent seemed irrelevant to the plot, which brings me back to point number one why was it included? Dialogue Finally, a minor point, the dialogue is just unbelievable at times. How many fart jokes can you put in? These are children, I know, but they're supposedly geniuses. It ties back to the characters, though, the interaction seemed forced, even fake at times. In my opinion, it's poorly written, and it didn't draw me in. I won't call it a terrible book you empathize with the protagonist, the plot twist at the end is set up well and offers meaningful resolution for the main character. All of that said, I believe it is a novel of below average quality. I simply cannot understand why this book is so critically acclaimed, or why it's at the top of so many people's recommended reading lists. Please, , help me understand why this book is so popular. Edit 1 I shouldn't call Demosthenes and Locke a plot hole, it's just a head scratcher. But it goes to my point about conflict these children can essentially do anything to anyone, take over the world in fact, and it's as easy as pressing some buttons. It's not intriguing conflict. Edit 2 Stickied, nice I've heard two good points so far that I should summarize here. 1 Demosthenes and Locke is not too far fetched considering the state of the internet in 1985 reserved mostly to the intelligentsia and universities . To this I would respond no, you're right, but it's several pages stuck right in the middle of the book that does nothing to advance the plot. The only purpose it serves is to connect Ender's Game to other books in the series, as far as I can tell. 2 These are children, so I should forgive the fart jokes. I'll grant you that. It still doesn't change my opinion that some of the dialogue feels faked and forced, but it does change my view on fart jokes. That said, the dialogue is a minor piece of my major view that the book reads like I'm watching someone play video games on easy mode, and is therefore not above average quality.

I don't think Ender's Game is a good book; it's completely unworthy of any of the critical acclaim it received.

98a71415-658a-4e31-b1d2-f68b8d1b5fe9

Cognitive fluency a “subjective experience of the ease or difficulty of completing a mental task”, also makes people believe things or like them because those things feel familiar, are well-expressed and in tune with their own expectations. This could explain why self-assuring religious myths are easier to believe regardless of factual information.

Religion often relies on simple and intuitive cognitive processes, rather than complex ones.

6e20b9c9-8515-424a-aecc-d5d7acdc96ab

TL DR Metric tire sizes use an aspect ratio which makes any change you might want to make to your tire size a tedious and confusing calculation and they aren't even metric. I doubt most people worry much about tire sizes. They get whatever size comes on the car, or use an online size selector. For those of us who go off roading tire size is something we think about. I'm going to be talking from that perspective here. Intuitively there are 3 things to consider about your tire size, in descending order of importance How large the diameter of your tire is, how wide the tread is and wheel rim diameter. This is all perfectly explained at a glance with a standard tire size 33x11.5R15 is a 33 diameter tire, with a 11.5 tread width and a 15 rim. Want to consider putting on a bigger tire for more ground clearance? Well you could go up to a 35, or down to a 31 for less clearance and better road manners. Want more tread width to stop sinking into the mud? Consider a 12.5 width. Did you get 16 wheels but want the same size tire. Well bro you need a 33x11.5R16 Easy as pie. Now lets take a look at this horrid mess 265 75R15. What do these numbers mean? We start with the width now at 265mm, ok fine. The rim size is the same, goody gumdrops. Then there is this hateful shit 75 is the aspect ratio. That is the ratio of the tire sidewall height the distance from rim to edge of the tire to the tire tread width. There are six reasons why this is the dumbest shit I've ever seen. 1 No one ever looks at a tire and says this needs a different aspect ratio unless forced to think this way because of this shitty system. In other words, this is totally unintuitive. 2 Since no one wants to know the aspect ratio by itself, it is a derived unit based on width which is already defined in the tire size. Tire diameter or sidewall is the only new information the aspect ratio is providing, yet it is not giving either to you without the use of a fucking calculator. 3 Dang I need one more inch of clearance to get over these logs. Well prepare to boot up excel With standard tires you add 1 2 2 and go from 33x10.5R15 to 35x10.5R15. With metric you have 267x86R15 gt 100 267 86 100 25.4mm 267 95 gt 267x95R15. Sweet sparkling jesus Note these metric sizes don't actually exist because no self respecting wheeler puts up with metric tire sizes. 4 I'd love these 16 wheels but I want the same size tire . This is a very reasonable thought. Yet once again we have to do some hardcore arithmetic to come up with an answer. Aspect ratio provides zero advantages in any situation. 5 I want a bit more sidewall so my ride isn't so harsh . Again reasonable request. Here you might think aspect ratio could help you out, but if you think about it, no it's much easier to use standard. You probably want the same size diameter, so you just decrease wheel size. If you are prepared to go up in diameter, you change a single value in standard. 6 I need more width in my tread so I can put more ass to the road . Ok this one is the same we just change the width But no It's not ha HA Increasing width will change that thrice damned ratio again Changing one intuitive value of width results in two numbers being changed with metric tire sizes. I feel people want to defend metric tire sizes because the progressive brow furrowers think anyone who doesn't support the metric system is a beer swilling cave troll, but this is unacceptably confusing. Not only that, but we aren't using fully metric units here. We still call out the rim size in inches I would be fine with using the same system but with metric units in fact I would prefer this but for now the standard tire size is vastly superior. in you dare.

Metric tire sizes are unintuitive, confusing and inferior to standard tire sizes.

061aca15-90ef-4258-b01b-fe169b530675

Being unable to speak all the languages of a country can make it harder to access further education and training. It also limits the pool of jobs that a person can apply for, the places they can live, the networks they can create. This makes it particularly important that linguistic minorities are protected by their state.

It is often a privilege of upper classes to be able to speak multiple languages. By not protecting the regional/ minority languages, vulnerable sections of society can get left behind.

960c78c2-a652-4153-abc4-2d63d90e8d2e

I have been questioning constantly constantly the fact of climate change and I can see it is happening a lot recently because of the record high temperatures of the past couple of years. The only problem is that the issue has become too polluted with politics and the truth behind it has been obscured by those in political power. In the mid 1900's or so there was a global cooling period where scientists went crazy over it and said we would have to put coal dust over the ice caps to prevent an ice age that would wipe us out. I hear a lot of the same stuff today with how our oceans will wipe out entire cities and destroy countries. We don't even know for sure why the climate is changing and we make these huge assumptions that this is your fault.

Climate Change is not Man Made.

164b4341-3ec4-4fe0-988d-0a22ef68b652

Nearly all calves that have ever existed have been used for human use. This is extremely unfair and is a complete abuse to animal rights and dignity. Humans use calves for many purposes, including veal, which is a main resource. But it is not fair for humans get get food and dairy out of calves, because humans do not giving anything back to these poor calves.

Humans use products from calves, but calves do not use human products.

811eef24-7e48-439f-9241-46d570a8b1a2

As I can truly can create arguments that I think do not have the highest impact 'small side argument', I should be also able to mark it accordingly.

People can add claims that even they would not consider very impactful.

9076f9db-8f24-4378-b363-5260216071ba

Religion has served as an opiate for the poor and oppressed - a message of ‘ensure your hardships now and be rewarded in the afterlife’ - robbing these people of a meaningful discourse about their current condition

Religion has been used by oppressors to make their constituents blindly follow whatever they please on doing.

52848657-055e-441c-a810-000d1d76eb54

It’s taken me a long time to decide. There are still 5 days for me to change my mind, but as it stands I want to leave the UK’s economic injustice, its shoddy governance, and its establishment. I’m going to go through each issue and give a brief overview of the arguments. Then I’ll state why I’m choosing Yes, and why I’m not choosing No. Democracy – Nobody from either side argues that Westminster is without fault. On the Yes side they pretend that Westminster is bad because it projects Tory government into Scotland. On the No side they believe that Westminster can be changed for the better from within. They’re both wrong. Westminster is anti democratic in other ways. Not just with the problems of the Lords, Cash for Honours and Expenses the voting system means that even when Labour gets into power, it is not because Scotland voted for it. First past the post means that there is bias towards a two party system and the main parties become inevitably more alike as they appeal to centrist, swing voters. And there is no swing in Scotland. It is mainly in the South of England. So it is no surprise that in 69 years of Westminster rule, Scottish votes changed which party received power only once, in 1974. In addition, Westminster steals our best politicians and leaves only numpties like Johann Lamont to hold the Scottish Government to account. If you think those Scottish MPs are doing a good job, over 30 of the 59 voted for benefit caps, and are straying from the ideology of their voter base. Why would we agree to that arrangement? Why, when we have the Additional Member System in Holyrood that is by voting standards pure sex, creates representative parliaments, and where coalitions force parties to adopt common sense policies everyone can agree on rather than top down ideological reorganisations? Politics – The SNP have created a myth that they are the party of progressiveness, and that independence is the stepping stone to social justice. Many no voters I’ve spoken to just can’t see past Alex Salmond, don’t like “nationalism,” the word is used in the same ignorant way socialism is in the USA and have not thought about the long term consequences of independence on the political discourse. I think the argument that I’ve heard that Scotland has more in common with the London dockworker than the Scottish baron is absolute nonsense. It ignores the fact Scottish and English politics is diverging. Holyrood does not draw on ethnic identity politics. It draws on Scotland’s collectivism. The anti bedroom tax payment, removing charges and private investment from the NHS, community buying of privately owned land, and free university education stand in stark contrast to austerity and corporate welfare. Meanwhile, UKIP’s rise guarantees that Westminster will resemble the worse kind of nationalism more than Holyrood ever could. They stress benefit thievery, not tax dodging. Immigration, not job creation. That we need to protect ourselves from Putin with Trident and from Islamists with military force. Moreover, the system entrenches establishment, widens the wealth gap and shrinks social mobility. Rather than uniting so the system can disenfranchise as it has done, Scotland is far better off walking away from the corporate agenda, not incrementally coaxing it to what it wants. Defence Foreign Policy – The SNP want rid of trident but want to join NATO, Better Together cry doom at Scotland’s defence and lack of influence at the top. Jobs at Faslane could be threatened but the SNP have pledged to re employ them. We got dragged into an illegal war, and the UK’s foreign policy has been nothing but bad news when it comes to the middle east. Having a smaller voice that says good things is better than a large, infinitely belligerent one. Leaving the UK is not going to change what the UK says, so if you like UK foreign policy, don’t worry, it’s still going to be there. In addition, it will give us a seat on the EU council where the Cabinet secretary stopped the Scottish Fisheries minister from attending , when he is the person with the most influence. EU – This is an shitstorm equal to the economic arguments. Vast quantities of legal opinions on both sides. At the end of the day, given that Scotland holds 25 of the EU’s renewable energy potential, 20 of the fishery stocks, and only 1 of the population of Europe, a deal will be struck. The EU can’t risk looking anti democratic and it certainly won’t risk those fishery stocks. It will probably take longer than the SNP claim though. Broadcasting – Anyone in doubt that Scotland needs its own broadcaster need only look at two videos. This one featuring Alex Salmond providing a 7 minute long answer to Nick Robinson’s question despite him heckling. You can dispute whether he answers the second part of the question but I think it’s pretty damn implicit from the content being discussed. Then watch this one featuring how it was reported. Bear in mind that this is the First Minister of Scotland. The prime minister would never be treated like that. Currency and Economics – SNP have pinned their hopes on a currency union. This will mean a provision for interest rates to be set according to both countries needs. The UK has rubbished the currency union. The economic arguments for both sides are leakier than an outbreak of diarrhoea aboard the Titanic. Every fact is disputed and amid the arse spraying mayhem an informed decision cannot be made. Unlike No voters, I no longer want to trade off social and political justice to gratify the stock market. Engorging bankers’ bonuses while food banks multiply, then saying that it is the way things have to be for economic prosperity? It is an Orwellian hypocrisy. Scotland’s productivity will not have changed post vote. Even if market jitters threaten share prices, it is absurd that businesses would abandon jobs they are still making profit on. Evidence of wealth in recession is easy to find the number of billionaires in India doubled in 2009 alone. The pound’s wobble was not genuine concern for Scotland’s future, but rather fear of existing power structures being challenged.

Scotland should be an independent country

fb307119-01ae-46ed-b33b-625c483d1013

Without an anonymous means to transact, no currently illegal economic activity can gain traction, for example the movement behind legalisation of cannabis would have faced significant challenges in a cashless society.

Cash is important for the the grey economy or informal sector to thrive.

29fc5cb4-0f66-47a5-aa93-d76893da1981

As each new generation grows and fails and is corrected, the history of the religion will continue to have inconsistencies. To insiders, the specific area of correction may be different from generation to generation so that a puritan and a modern evangelical will be challenged in different ways at times so that, though they follow the same God and share much in common, their experiences might also seem very different at times. To an outsider, the whole progression may seem totally chaotic.

Looking at many of the Abrahamic religions will show that the followers tend to stray from good obedience nearly every generation and often in different ways in different generations. God often finds a way to correct certain generations, and that correction is rarely a resetting to an older state but looks somewhat new.

0dbb9800-5876-4d06-a411-983525e9627e

The question is pretty clear. I don't understand the importance of professional artists, be it in any field. The reasons why I think this way are They are highly overpaid and treated almost as gods by so many people. People dying to get a signature or a picture of a famous actor or singer but the people who are actually important in a society get overshadowed. The doctors, scientists, researchers which save lives and advance the human race are more important to society. Not only do the musicians, actors etc, get more attention than they deserve, they also encourage it. They contribute nothing to the society. There is no need for any particular artist. Sure, they have entertainment value and everybody likes to hear songs and watch movies but if some famous artist was not born, nobody would lose anything. A little controversial There success is largely based on luck or connections in the industry. They work very little. One or two songs written in one year, a lot of times written by other people, mostly auto tuned. A little controversial Not only do they earn a lot of money, they usually promote and sponsor high cost and unnecessary products in industries like fashion. Promoting and releasing new very expensive useless shoes etc. is a particular example. A lot of artists participate in actions that might lead others to believe that they are spoiled teenagers and have little care or regard for their society and even their fans. Getting everything easily and not working hard to achieve their goals, their actions sometimes even disrespect people outright. They are very influential even though most of the time, they lack necessary qualifications. for example, a certain singer tweeting about flat earth and people actually believing him. They get special treatment. Please note that I am not talking about anyone in particular, I am talking about professional artists from all industries, these include actors, singers, artists who paint etc. A few of these may be applied to other occupations as well, like sportsmen and other athletes. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing

The importanceneed of any artist musicians, actors, etc. in society

4ab301c8-ae4c-4ff1-a798-bb3ce06e683e

You heard me. Now's the time to wake up, sheeple. Today, I'm going to peel the wool from your eyes and reveal the truth that Luigi is the better of the two Mario bros and he deserves our respect, trust, and dignity. 1 Luigi is green. Have you seen that shade of green he rocks? That's some serious green right there. Green is a tranquil color. Green is often used to signify safety, ie 'green means go', or terror alert level green is the safest. Trees. Grass. Cucumbers. Nature. What is the color red? Warning. Stop. Danger. Blood. Communism. Nazism. Absolute chaos. Mario's primary color choice is the embodiment of fear underscored with a tonality of madness. Who's more likely to cut you off, a green station wagon or a red sports car? Point, Luigi. 2 As player two, you can see the mistakes player one makes. Didn't realize there's a hole there? Maybe they missed a block. Hell, maybe they missed a pipe? Those who play Mario just plow along, unabated with interest to their surroundings. Luigi players are more observant. Careful. 3 Luigi is quirkier in games. He can jump higher. He's got a cool headbutt move. He can do everything Mario can, only better. Mario, on the other hand, symbolizes normalcy. There is literally a trope called The Mario , underscoring a character that is, on the whole, average in every conceivable way. Luigi breaks from that mold, finding a new way to stand out without going to great excess. 4 Luigi is monogamous. He has had only one lover in his heart, Princess Daisy. Mario, on the other hand, is an insidious malcontent with a long string of lovers. Sure, you may remember Princess Peach, but what of Pauline? The woman from Donkey Kong? After she was rescued, she had been tossed under the bus outright, a mere pawn for Mario's rescuing based sexual fetish. Hell, Mario still sees Pauline from time to time, but only of Donkey Kong is involved and minis, for some reason . And remember Daisy from earlier? Yeah, she's from the Super Mario Land series on the Game Boy. This means that Mario went from Pauline, to Peach aka Toadstool, to Daisy, then back to Peach Luckily, Luigi was their to pick up the pieces after Mario broke Daisy's heart and showed her what a real man looked like. That's how it has remained ever since. 5 Luigi has the better mustache. Go ahead and GIS it right now. Compare and contract the different mustaches. Luigi's is a fine affair, torn straight from the pages of yesteryear, invoking that turn of the century ideas of being a strong, stalwart gentleman. Mario's mustache looks like a curtain and invokes that feeling of a seedy bastard leaving a 1970s porno theater. 6 Luigi has the better personality. Strictly speaking, he actually has a personality. He can come off as a bit scared at times, but I remember a quote saying that true bravery is knowing your fear and overcoming it for the sake of a greater good. This is Luigi in a nutshell. He realizes his life is finite, but he knows what is to be done. Mario recklessly strides into the darkest depths of infinity. Mario is not brave. Mario is at the least fool hearty and at its extremes suicidal 7 Luigi is taller. I know you are chomping at the bit, ready to call me 'height ist' or whatever, but hear me out. Even if we can exclude all previously listed elements and all else was constant, we know that Luigi is taller. He can reach a higher shelves. He's got a longer stride. You can call me what you what, but at the end of the day, who are you going to ask to get that jar of pickles from the top shelf? And I haven't even begin explore all options, here He is not the Green Mario you make him out to be. Mario is, in fact, the Red Luigi. Now, merely try to . EDIT I really did not expect this much response to something so trivial. I want to thank you all for your participation today and you are, of course, welcome to argue in my absence. As for me, Luigi will be my favorite, literally forever. That bitch got me Reddit Gold That is literally blowing my mind. However, I do subscribe to the multiverse Luigi theory now, so Point somewhat changed?

Luigi is the superior Mario Brother.

9ad5ebbd-78c6-4a29-b3b2-14999b3c474f

I’ve seen a lot of pro life people take the position that abortion should be illegal unless a woman is raped or her life is at stake. I’ve read a lot of different views opinions on this topic, but rarely have I ever heard anyone talk about what I think is a real problem with this option — if a woman can get an abortion only after being raped, a lot of women will claim rape simply to get an abortion, because women who don’t want to be pregnant will do whatever it takes to get rid of a baby, and this seems like an easy way in this case. This in turn will make actual rape claims even more suspect than they are now, and in turn we’ll always be even more skeptical of rape victims, which is an absolute travesty when it comes to women’s rights. So change my view. Explain to me how this isn’t a likely outcome in this case, because no matter how much I try to wrap my brain around it, this is the result I come up with in regards to this opinion.

If abortion were legal only in the case of rape, the number of rapes would skyrocket.

8ef263ab-30f4-46c3-9128-c6610ce610e9

Choosing to live is different than the case of a pedophile because we are not directly harming anyone by choosing to remain alive.

Instincts are often wrong. Pedophiles, for example, may have instincts to carry out their desires.

ac0730b1-1d9c-4cab-a29d-908a1cbd51f0

With the newest addition to the Netflix Original library Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency I'm beginning to lose hope in Netflix ability to create good films and series. A series of inconvenient events was horrible, the Death Note movie made its creator delete its twitter, Stranger Things is just a movie that has a lot of hype and no body is daring to say anything against it. Arguments Netflix only cares for subscriptions so they try to make series that will get a lot of public attention. They don't care if the idea is good or not, but just want to get non netflix users to get Netflix to view the series the movie. Netflix pays twitter users with lots of followers to say something good about a new series even tho they maybe not have watched it. They just want the masses to have a biased good opinion on a show movie. Why should you be against a series if your favorite person on Twitter said it likes it? Netflix is a profit company. Its employees know how to SELL series and movies and not how to make or rate them. They only know how to deliver a series to a user based on the preferences of the user and have no ability to assess whether a series is good or not. Netflix is stealing a lot of content and frame it with their Netflix Original label. For example many anime on Netflix are Netflix originals like The Seven Deadly Sins even tho they were not originally made for Netflix. This way they want to give credibility to the label Netflix Original . EDIT They just want their shows to be weird and quirky. Because in their opinion that's good. That is what happened to a lot of the series, including the 3 mentioned in the first paragraph. EDIT 2 I don't think that examples would help me change my view very much. I think it would be more helpful to give counter arguments to Netflix only wants the views and not artistic freedom give artistic freedom to those who need it and have good ideas . Series that might come up as counter arguments Black Mirror not netflix original Marvel series not netflix original A series of inconvenient events, Death Note, Stranger things, Bojack Horseman only generates hype so the opinion It's not good, don't watch it doesn't get through which in case of Death Note came through. This only happened because the Anime community was having bigger expectations than the general Netflix viewer IMO. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing

Netflix can only produce bad movies and series

b2c817ae-119f-4b0f-96ca-e9777594f91a

In the Book of Revelation the church is mentioned 19 times in the first three chapters and then disappears until chapter 20 after the tribulation. Where did it go it was raptured!

Is the Rapture Pre-tribulation or as some believe mid-tribulation or post-tribulation

a16ace91-a0ce-43b6-837c-0885e1436208

Ads are everywhere. TV, Radio, Billboards, Movies, etc. But they add any value to society, IMO all the man hours spent on advertising are lost, like digging a big hole in the forest and then filling it back in, just for the sake of creating jobs. The only possible positive thing I can see about advertising is that it may inform a customer about a product that he may need and did not know about. But this seems to be a flimsy justification at best. Of course, you could argue the practical limits and problematics of abolishing the advertising industry, but I'm not asking about that, but about the morality , for lack of a better word, of advertising. EDIT The counterarguments mostly boil down to advertising is good because it informs the customer if advertising were not there you would have to pay for a lot of services like youtube, TV limiting advertisement is limiting free speech I don't agree with any of the three points above. I am sorry that I don't have more timeto discuss this individidually with every one of you, but my views are Advertising isn't good because it informs the customer what product exists. That is a ridiculously unfair and unefficient system of informing the customer which products exist. It is not fair that some products inform more people of their existence because they can shell out more money on ads. I believe a better system could be implemented. Saying that you would have to pay for currently free services is not true too. You ARE paying them, with your time, by watching ads. And your time watching ads is DEFINITELY less valuable than 8 per hour, which is min wage. So, it is much more efficient to pay for these services by selling your time to McDonalds your current employer. Limiting advertisement is limiting free speech. This one is less clear. You can argue that limiting advertisement is limiting the actions of individuals and thus limiting free speech. On the other hand, by limiting the speech of big companies, we are making the speech of small companies louder, which IMO increases overall free speech . Regardless, I have a utilitarianistic worldview, and so I don't really care much about limiting free speech if it provides more value to society as a whole.

Advertising should be banned

7f9db077-6be2-4375-98a0-53d542797294

Many accounts of events given by sole witnesses are unverifiable. A historian might still use those accounts to make an argument about what happened.

An unverifiable account can still be used to make a historical argument.

8c3f6236-c8a1-498a-9612-9960fd745303

I've never understood why when NBA players and college commit 6 personal fouls they get kicked out of the game. Usually when someone fouls out it's towards the end of the game, and if it's a close game that's when the game should be decided by the best players on both teams. Plus it's more exciting, and to me more indicative of letting the better team win to have both teams at full strength. I wouldn't be against removing the bonus and double bonus that way you can't have people just fouling all game long so the other team never gets a shot off . I'm also not against people being kicked out for flagrant II's or technical's, but to me it's just stupid to have personal fouls be able to boot the best players on both teams out. No other sport that I know of kicks players out for minor infractions like the NBA does.

The 6 personal foul foul-out rule in the NBA is stupid, and makes the game less exciting.

dfc59e9c-4cd3-48bd-be5c-82806c156af6

I am a full time student currently majoring in a game design department. I understand at the moment that when I am pitching a game that has already been in development for some time, and is ready to be released soon, I want the players to know about what the game is intended to be. But because I saw the hate towards a not yet released Nintendo game, I was curious to see why and these are my thoughts. For Metroid Prime Federation Force, it is pitched to the player as a spin off. And since spin offs do not necessarily focus on gameplay mechanics of its core game series, and would expand the story elements of the core game's universe, I believed this is justifiable for this game to explore other genres. As for Paper Mario Color Splash, this is a Paper Mario core series title where the theme is all about paints and colors. There aren't anything shown that depicts what the game is all about, but the hints from the trailer shows some Sticker Stars elements, and a little bit of The Thousand Year Door. I don't know what other features not shown in the trailer do, and I'm positively sure others don't know them, just like me. But the 2 minute trailer gives off a negative impression among Paper Mario fans of Sticker Stars, and that's something they do not want and do not wished the next iteration of Paper Mario to become. I'm fine with it, since Paper Mario Color Splash is not touted as a spin off of Paper Mario, or anything else than a core game series. Disclaimer Anything inside this parentheses are not related whatsoever to Paper Mario. Why would a popular spin off not have a new spin off? It's justifiable to have a few spin offs of a popular spin off if it makes business sense, right? So in short, I observed an unjustifiable hate towards Metroid Prime Federation Force, and what I believed is a justifiable hate towards Paper Mario Color Splash. I'm noting the difference between the two types of hate towards these two Nintendo games here. The unjustifiable hate is due to the Metroid Prime spin off game being regarded as not a Metroid series game , and is not allowed to go and experiment with other types of game design elements multiplayer, teamwork, squadron, etc. Don't you want some updates to the Metroid universe? Don't you want more story plots? Don't you want more lore? Don't you want to know the back story to the interactions between Samus and Sylux? It is worth noting is that the producer wasn't allowed to put a Metroid Prime title on the Wii U, so in the end, the Metroid fans are going to be waiting for an NX title. What will the Metroid fans do in the meantime, if there are no Metroid universe game made for the current generation before NX ? The producer doesn't want to let the fans wait, so I am sure Kensuke Tanabe would like to do something about this. And then in the trailer, Kensuke Tanabe mentioned how he wanted this spin off to be made for a portable handheld. He stated this project started on Nintendo DSi in 2009, and if you think about the average game development time being 2 to 3 years, this game would've been out in 2011 or 2012, coinciding with a release schedule after the release of Metroid Other M. But due to hardware and performance problems, this project was delayed. Next you have Nintendo discontinuing the DS line, being the Nintendo DSi is the last of the DS handhelds, and releasing the Nintendo 3DS. Here, it would seem hardware performances are not up to speed with Nintendo 3DS, and Metroid for Wii U is not doable, the Metroid fans can only wait. Finally, we have New Nintendo 3DS, with an upgraded hardware system, that is now capable of running the on hold project. If you think from this angle, you would start to see notable trends of delayed projects just shelved into the backlog, until new technology enables them to be put in production and further improved to become games. See Super Mario 128 Now, Metroid series is churning its engines, and seeing how Kensuke Tanabe is now able to do what he had planned a long time ago, which was to make a spin off planned for release in 2011~2012, now for 2016, do you still think the hate for Metroid Prime is unjustifiable? Please convince me otherwise. I'm willing to hear the opposite side. Thank you

I cannot justify the hate against Metroid Prime: Federation Force for Nintendo

23f595cc-cca1-44c0-a2c0-417b4553d13b

This is emphasized by the fact that the state with the lowest incarceration rate - Maine - does not disenfranchise its prisoners, whereas some of the states with the highest imprisonment rates - such as Alabama, Mississippi and Arizona - are among those that disenfranchise all former and current felons Leong, p. 2 The Sentencing Project

If felony disenfranchisement lowers crime rates, states should have different incarceration rates based on their felony disenfranchisement rules p. 2. However, the data suggests that there is no clear link between the two rates.

7cf5c6c8-fcc4-4f5b-94db-e8ff8548c3b9

Large religions mean that central, likely more moderate religious authorities, can check extremist groups within the religion.

Decentralized religion comes along with less oversight and less accountability over local practices.

22a2e172-37f2-4539-a670-7de85db1419a

Colleges often claim that they seek a diverse student body, however, often admissions systems value race more than any other diversity factor.

Affirmative action distributes opportunities to racially marginalized groups, while ignoring other disadvantaged groups.

21657734-5a64-44a8-9623-489d00246425

Airbnb economic contribution is especially beneficial in parts of the city where hotels are not allowed, enabling those communities to benefit financially from tourism as well Coles et al, p. 2

Airbnb contributes greatly to economic activity in New York City.

3de43f0c-1c92-4d7c-a86d-2daa7c853481

A proliferation of languages in academia will serve to fracture the interrelations of academics, not unify them. As more and more academics and innovators interested in new academic developments find it possible to obtain information wholly in their native languages, then the impetus toward unification in a primary language of academia and commerce will be slowed or entirely thwarted. Through history there have been movements toward this sort of linguistic unity, because it reduces the physical and temporal costs of information exchange; for example scholars throughout Early Modern Europe communicated in Latin.1 This policy serves only to dampen this movement, which will, even if helpful to people in the short-run, serve to limit the capacity of developing world academics to engage with the developed world. Today English has become the definitive language of both international academic discourse and commerce. In France for example, a country known for its protective stance towards its language, journals have been changing to publishing in English rather than French; the journal Research in Virology changed in 1989 as almost 100% of their articles were submitted in English compared to only 15% in 1973.2 The trend towards one language is a positive one, because it has meant more movers and shakers in various countries have all been able to better and more quickly understand one another's desires and actions leading to more profitable and peaceful outcomes generally.3 Also important is the fact that while academics and other interested parties in the developing world may be able to grapple with academic work more effectively once translated for them, they now have a greater disadvantage due to the enervating effects this translation produces. Without the positive impetus to learn the major language or languages of international discourse, developing world academics will never be able to get posts and lectureships at institutions in the developed world, or to take part in joint research in real time. The convergence of language ultimately serves to promote common understanding, which means people from the developing world can more effectively move between their home country and others. It also helps build a common lexicon of terms that will be more robust for international use, as opposed to translations, which are often imperfect due to divergences of linguistic concepts and thus susceptible to mistake. 1 Koenigsberger, H. G., Mosse, George L., and Bowler, G. Q., Europe in the Sixteenth Century, London, 2nd Edn, 1989, p.377 2 Garfield, Eugene, ‘The English Language: The Lingua Franca Of International Science’, The Ceisntist, 15 May 1989, 3 Bakopoulos, D. ‘English as Universal Academic Language: Good or Bad?’. The University Record, 1997, Available:

It is better to have fewer languages in common use in global academic and economic interrelations

87990b53-8b1c-459f-97e6-aafb1ec77f63

In non-democratic countries supported by and allied with the US, such as Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, the lack of representative government is seen as the primary obstacle to peace and stability in the region Zogby, p. 11

The US supports corrupt autocracies in the region and thus fuels anti-Americanism Lindberg & Nossel, p. 9

2102a588-5842-4d5a-89f7-9d9ef97338ad

I believe white people are probably, at least nowadays, the most tolerant race. The main evidence there is for this, from my point of view, is how each country with a clear majority of one group of people treatment of minority ethnic groups. nbsp So if we consider how most countries where whites are a majority of the population and compare to countries where others are a majority i believe that specially in western europe and Canada minorities are significantly better treated in comparision with countries where arabs are a majority saudi arabia and gulf states are not particulary kind to black or southeast asian people and overall anyone who is not muslim are not exactly viewed as an equal , jews palestine , east indians south asians the whole caste system and overall sectarism , east asians chinese and japanese are notably pretty intolerant or at least very sceptical and closed with other cultures , blacks i hope the discussion doesn´t focus entirely on this but i think that what is called reverse racism , while not being institutional if we don´t consider things like affirmative action which is at least i´d even say literally a form of discrimination , is pretty real nowadays with this idea that whites are some kind of devil that is always responsible for african americans problems, i agree with Kanye Candace view on this. Also if we look at countries like Zimbabwe and most recently South Africa we have examples of bad treatment of minorities notably whites in majority black countries. The whole tribal mentality, groups and style of life that there still is in most of Africa nowadays is very sectarian too. Even latinos which are mostly or partially white so it can kind of count as a counter argument too i guess where skin colour is a signal of status, the lighter usually the better if we look at Mexico or Brazil television, countries like India and Philippines are also an example of this . nbsp EDIT About this last point, skin colour is not the same as race at all i am well aware of that. My point was that there is arguably some intolerance discrimination in latin america and south southeast asia based on how light your skin is but that is not necessarily related with race so it´s right to point that out and it´s probably irrelevant to the post discussion. There also may be because of race for example in phillipines both lighter skin color and european ancestry, which is usually correlated in this case, gives you an upperhand to be a model or on tv , but one thing is different from the other. nbsp Out of curiosity, i added two strawpoll, one for the most tolerant and one for least multiple answer are allowed but i´d ask you not to choose more than 2 nbsp Please keep the discussion civil. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing

White people are the most tolerant race poll included

cbad8c97-bd36-4afa-95a9-6ed9a61f20de

Parents would not willingly send their children to a failing school when a better option is available. The profit motive forces private schools to provide better education than their competitors or lose profits.

A focus on profit would encourage a school to perform to higher standards to remain competitive. Public schools do not always have such a need.

bc5dbb54-01d7-41be-80c9-a5f00f4d0446

Mexico has experienced a long history of armed interventions by the US, making this potential infringement on Mexican territory an insult to national pride in Mexico.

President Andres Lopez has voiced that any incursion within Mexico will be seen as an infringement on Mexico's sovereignty.

6411969d-751a-44f9-b0c2-bc8ce248b394

Even taking into account the net rise in disposable income, the general consumption effect would be negative because people with the highest propensity to consumer would be taxed higher, while those with the lowest consumption rate relative to their income would be taxed lower.

Taxing purchases encourages individuals to spend less, which slows the economy.

5b9e960d-632d-42dd-bc88-720b70f857dc

The USS Defiant was the first purpose built warship to be designed by Star Fleet in a large part of the organization's history. Warships are primarily designed to fight; exploration vessels even heavily armed ones are not. The vast majority of Star Fleet ships are the latter: armed science and exploration vessels, not warships.

The Rebel Alliance and its ships are designed specifically for battle. In contrast, many Federation ships serve, first and foremost, other purposes, for example space exploration.

30452bdd-aa99-4fd8-acad-5e1a9a9fa4e3

The Rebels are much better at jury-rigging and functioning "on manual" than the Federation, and the Federation are quite frequently caught with "systems down" and no manual back up available. Even Tom Paris complains that the helm of Voyageur lacks "manual control". Federation ships rely on key systems, which as targetable hard points on many ships, can be easily tactically disabled by a highly surgical strike force like those Rebel fighters excel in.

This technological superiority is at best temporary. With other factions in the Star Trek Universe the Ferengi would sell the Rebellion much of the tech in Star Trek negating any tech advantage that the Trek universe has. The Rebellion relies heavily on modified ship classes and could add Star Trek tech to their fleet easily.

91f3c863-47f9-4e95-9608-ee77ce68e67e

Many countries want to know the outcome of EU-UK talks before making their own commitments to the UK, ensuring that their won't in fact be treaties signed with some non-EU nations by the time a hard Brexit occurs.

Each agreement has to be reviewed, the country approached, the decision makers found, meetings arranged, trips made, negotiations started and completed. This will take up considerable time and resources of the Hungarian government.

931fe669-5b32-4f61-9f65-6411ed677f2a

Abusers often try and regain control of a relationship by suing for child custody rights. Often abusers use custody rights to harass or control the other parent or manipulate the children.

The release of such sensitive information can have serious consequences for women. More than 1 in 4 women experience physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner.

48ae6684-fcf7-42ac-8625-f3a728d671d2

By the time TNG takes place it is made fairly clear that systemic racial and gender biases are a thing of the past for humans. Since transgenderism requires a persistent set of sex based stereotypes, roles, or behaviors. It wouldn't make any sense for it to exist in a post gender society like that experienced by humans under the Federation. Even transexualism shouldn't be visible, as it is clear the medical technology of the TNG era would readily allow for sex changes in people with some kind of sexual dysphoria, making them indistinguishable from the general population. The one exception I would make is if producers decided to run time lines in pre Federation eras, like Enterprise or earlier. I think you could still have non human transgender characters, which might be worth exploring considering the wide variety of species and cultures available in the Star Trek universe. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing

A transgender human should never exist in Star Trek

4bdeb247-3c2b-4a20-beff-209a81d47f1c

Non-human primates have developed tools for various purposes including gathering and hunting. This proves that they are capable of performing scientific discoveries for their society.

Humans are not uniquely capable of creating culture, art or science.

1feeedf2-a538-4de3-a1d8-25d5c5d7ee08