Datasets:
ArXiv:
Tags:
License:
text
stringlengths 21
59.5k
| label
int64 0
1
| src
stringclasses 322
values |
|---|---|---|
White girls very rarely date Asian men. Even in Asia white men are much more popular than Asian men. Even though an Asian guy may have a preference for white girls he doesn't have much of a chance with one so he should instead pursue a non-White girl. Asian guys are penalized by their looks because I don't see them as being significantly less social, athletic, intelligent, wealthy, etc. Facial looks are genetic and cannot be changed easily. Having a fit body helps but not nearly as much as for white or black guys. I wish it weren't true. EDIT: Basically I'm saying Asian men are at a significant disadvantage in the dating scene especially if they are attracted to white women, and most comments so far seem to be confirming that view. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I am a 23 year old male Indian American male. I have never held hands with a girl, been kissed, or obviously had sex. I have never even asked someone out. I do not think a girl has expressed even the slightest interest in me. I graduated from college last year and am about to start med school in a month. I had been fat for years but lost all the weight over the past year and am pretty fit now. I am only 5ft 4 tall however. I do think facially I am slight above average and I wouldn't call myself ugly. My family struggled financially and I focused on academics like a madman and was able to go to a great college and am headed to a great med school. It is my ticket to a better life. Yet I believe strongly that life will be one of loneliness. Internally I am angry and bitter even as all my friends think I must be so happy to start this next chapter of my life. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Take three people, Persons A, B, and C. They live in the US. Person A was born here and is a citizen. They happen to be a huge idiot and don't even know what the president DOES. They have the right to vote with literally no requirements other than surviving for 18 years and registering. They can vote. Person B is basically Albert freaking Einstein. They have the highest known IQ in the world. They know every position of all the candidates and can vote with the utmost qualification. Before they do this, they must pass a citizenship test. They do, and they can vote. Person C is just as dumb as Person A. They're not sure why people speak French in Montreal despite having lived in Canada their entire life. They moved to the US and are unable to pass a citizenship test after living in the US for the requisite time. They cannot vote. Only Person B is qualified to vote, yet Persons A and B can both do so. Why not have Person A take the same test as Persons B and C before they can vote? EDIT: People below have already changed my view. (If you have something new to say, though, say it! I'm interested in what people think.) Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
(A) Work part-time in high school; Then go to college (B) Work full-time before you go to college (C) Work while you study in college. I was a spoiled lazy kid because I never got a job. Had my priorities mixed up and flunked. I got a job in the real world, and it was painful, but humbling. If I had gotten a job at 18 (or sooner), I would've done much better in college and learned crucial life lessons sooner. There's also lots of other people who are deluded and spoiled because they don't work. I won't allow my kids to go to college without having worked first. I'm not restricting this purely to retail, but retail teaches humility. It teaches you how to be diplomatic, how you're not the center of the universe, sometimes you have to tolerate shit, things won't always go your way. And after working a retail job, you'll treat other retail workers with more respect. Having a job also teaches the reality of the world versus theory. I used to be a hardcore Republican who thought poor people didn't have it THAT bad and wealthy people deserve to live 100x better because they work harder. Now, I see the real challenges average people face, especially in the ghetto. Having real world experience will help you just as much (you'll encounter lots of people, learn your strengths and weaknesses), if not more than spending years in college "finding yourself." If you have no idea what you want to do in college, you're going to waste lots of time. Lots of college kids are entitled because parentsgovernment pay for everything. And they think they automatically deserve a high-paying job just because they graduated. Nope, gotta work your way up from the bottom. Nobody's too good for an entry-level job. Oh, and it doesn't hurt to have a little more on your resume. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
When police introduce a new form of speed prevention through easier distribution of tickets or they crack down on speeders, the motivation behind it doesn't actually make a difference. Whether they are doing it to decrease chances of accidents or they are revenue raising, the power still lies completely in the hand of the person behind the wheel. Even if the police had the intention of revenue raising, that money still goes toward hiring more officers, putting more police cars on the road and getting better technology to combat road accidents. They aren't making anyone speed, they are just making the best of the fact that people are going to speed, so they might as well bring some revenue in from it. Edit: I should have clarified that I am referring exclusively to traffic offences eg. Speeding, drink driving etc. Edit: My view has been changed. I now see that the motivations behind revenue raising contradict the motivations that the police service is created to have. If revenue raising was the goal, the Police service would not only be out for the wrong reasons, but the entire outcome of what they would achieve would be counterproductive to society as a whole. Due to this, revenue raising cannot be seen as morally sound. | 1 | cmv_human |
I love to eat Asiatic food but I could never really use the chopsticks thinking "Wow, that is much better than usual cutlery." Using chopsticks is at best a cultural exercise of contortion. Forks and knifes are superior in every way I can imagine in every situation. Including: rice that is sticky and particularly rice that isn't sticky. versatility while eating different kinds of food eating with manners not having to fear the dreaded fall of food I hope some of you will be able to help me find arguments to coerce me into using those chopsticks:) Update Some facts I've accepted regarding the chopsticks: Exercise fine motor skills Give time to taste the food and appreciate it Can be used while doing other things Are easier to clean, produce and carry Are superior if you want to: Preserve the integrity of the food you eat (If you don't want to break a grapevine until it's in your mouth) Eat crusty things (popcorns, cheetos, peanuts...) without dirtying your hands Eat leafs or salad You can have makeshift chopsticks easily while makeshift knifes and forks are still not a thing in 2015. Historically better at not stabbing your enemy during dinner? Let this be noted, the spoon and the spork were proposed and I'm all in their favors! As for the sporfe, knifoon and spooned knork I'm more dubious. All of this may be quite situational but in those situations I accept chopsticks as superior. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
In the argument against gay marriage, people often use the 'slippery slope' argument that it's legalisation would lead on to polygamous marriages also becoming legal. I'm not interested in arguing whether or not this will happen, but why it would be a bad thing if it did. This would be within the context of people being allowed to have multiple marriages, you would not automatically be married to your spouse's other spouse, although you could choose to do this. While I personally am not interested in polygamy, what's wrong with it? It's natural for humans to live in groups.'Tribes' or'family' whatever you would like to call it. I don't see anything wrong with families that have several adults to act as role models for children. I just can't see why it would be detrimental to children to be raised in that environment. To be allowed to marry you need to be a consenting adult and in being one people can make their own relationship decisions. As long as there isn't a sex bias (e.g. men can have many wives but not the other way around), then I think that people can make their own decision about whether a polygamous relationship is something they want. They retain the right to get divorced if their spouse marries someone else when they want a monogamous marriage, just like people retain the right to get a divorce if their spouse cheats on them. People sometimes argue against polygamous marriages saying that people are already legally allowed to have polygamous relationships, why get married? Because of the legal privileges associated with it? When I get married the legal benefits of being married are going to be way down on the list of reasons. Getting married is a way to show your love for someone. A big argument going against it is that the legality of it would be very complex. I don't think that's necessarily the case. If you died your possessions would be divided up amongst your spouses. Your children would either go to their other parent or be claimed by a next of kin who wants them, with fitness to look after them being determined by a court of law. As is the case currently with children whose parents die without leaving a will e.g. should they go to uncle A or uncle B? There are lots of examples of legal contracts which are binding to groups of people, why couldn't this be applied to marriage? It could be encouraged, or even possibly mandatory, to have pre-nuptial agreements which define legal aspects of the marriage relating to property ownership, etc. prior to getting married if you're married to more than one person. With current spouses also signing this document. I'm not really that interested in ethical arguments. Why should one person's ethics determine how other people live their lives? For example, I don't think I would ever have an abortion for my own personal ethical reasons. That doesn't mean that I'm against other people having the option. I'm really interested to know if anyone has any good arguments against polygamous marriages. I think a lot of people are against them for their own personal ethical reasons, because they don't want one themselves, rather than for an actually good, justifiable reason. So please try to CMV! I'm going to try to reply to every direct response to me. I get really ped off when people cherry-pick arguments and ignore the ones that don't suit them. If there are a lot of responses it may take a while though so please be patient! But in saying that if you reply purely because I've committed to responding; if you put forth a low-effort comment you will get a low-effort answer. Edit: I'm getting a bit tired so off to bed for me before anyone else comments I feel obliged to stay up and discuss this some more! I will definitely be back so please keep the discussion going! Edit2: Right, there's a fair few replies so I will be going through them. Although a lot of later comments are using arguments that have been used before I'm still determined to reply to all of them. It may take me a while as I unfortunately have other things that I need to be doing, such is life, so I will get to you eventually! Edit3: I have finally awarded a delta! Apologies to anyone whose comment I missed, but thank you all for being part of the conversation. It was very entertaining and I definitely feel a lot more informed. So you don't have to scroll down find the explanation for my delta, I'll give it here: "While I still think there is nothing wrong with polygamous relationships the concept of some sort of legal commitment, this couldn't be marriage. You could have some kind of legally binding partnership with multiple partners which has some of the benefits of marriage, such as recognition of the partnership affecting things like visitation rights and a legal claim to be next of kin, but this wouldn't be the same as marriage as we have it now. It's not so much about when people in the marriage are living together, but if things later needed to be taken apart. There is just no way to predict every possibility for a pre-nuptial agreement, and the situation could get so complex that you couldn't have a standard that could be fallen back on every time." Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
So first of I am danish. That means that I follow american politics, much in the same way I follow german politics. Somethings are importent for me and my situation, but most thing are not that importent to me. It is kind of like watching a football match where you don't cheer for any of the teams. With that said I find it kind of scary that there is a Clinton and a Bush in this election. The kings in Denmark used to be elected, some thousand years ago, but then it became normal to elect kings from the same familly. Then latter it was always the oldest son and then we endeed up with the system where the king was always the oldest son from the old king. The same is more or less true in many other countries. People seem to rather want to vote on people from families they know than random people. To me it kind of seems like America is getting set in their political dynasties and that if this development continues, we might end up with a system where everyone in theory can try to be elected president, but in practise it will always be people from the same political dynasties that gets elected. That is not a nice view to have. Please change it. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
In this post I am going to be very blunt. This is because I want to show exactly how all this impacted the thinking of myself and the people around me. I was born here in the US but I am of Chinese and Thai descent. As a child I grew up not really caring at all about race, I just sort of assumed humans came is all different colors and shapes and that was normal. I didn't even know there were names for the different races and ethnicities. The only thing I was really aware of was if people actually came from a different country. As I grew older, my classmates and I were bombarded with racial messages during school and everywhere else. We were taught that white people were somehow inherently racist. We were taught that everyone else was perfect and every bad thing they did throughout history was somehow righteous and justified. I started to see lines forming. White kids were told that they were somehow responsible for everything some people in the past did. Black kids were taught that they were owed something. I noticed kids start self-segregating. It wasn't anything dramatic, no one attributed this to the things we were being taught, but people knew they were different now. I grew older still. I started paying attention to the news and the internet,. Race was discussed alot. I learned about affirmative action and it made my blood boil. If you didn't know, Asians are hurt the most by affirmative action. I would need a MUCH higher SAT score and GPA than a black person to get into the schools of my choice. I started to resent black people for this. Why was I being hurt because an entire race was apparently performing poorly and my entire race wasn't? And if discrimination was the reason, well my race was discriminated against in the past too! This was opinion shared by my friends. It led us to think that if this was the case, black people didn't try very much and were lazy in school. Otherwise why would they need help? I was infuriated to learn that a black girl who took all level classes and wasn't even close to the top of the class was accepted into my first choice college while I was not, despite my excellent grades and test scores. When I went to college, I made sure to avoid going to black doctors and other black professionals for fear than they got their position due to unfair preferences. I learned about the black crime rate, and prison population. I started to become scared when I saw a black person on the streets. All the commentary about how this was racist merely solidified my opinion. I saw how violent black neighborhoods are, I was catcalled constantly by black men in the streets, I worked in a leasing office and saw black tenants who lived entirely off the government and complained about everything. If I hadn't heard about race my entire life I would have written all these off as "Man those specific people suck" rather than lump the entire race together. People address these issues as if everyone else is to blame for these peoples actions, instead of saying hey, those are just bad people. Instead they make it a race thing where those bad people are actually VICTIMS. I heard about the police shootings and the publicity around them. I heard about the riots, and the more people talked about how the senseless destruction was justified the more I distanced myself and the more scared I became. I started to involuntarily see black people as a threat. My friends all secretly talked about how they wished all these people would go back to Africa so we could all live in peace. In the past couple years after all the discussion about race I have seen SOO many non-black people become essentially racist, and so many wonderful black people become entitled and vitriolic. So basically, I feel like if we brought our kids up to not see color and talk about Americans as Americans, rather than african-american, asian american, etc, racism would soon become a thing of the past. If we keep bringing up race in EVERYTHING, kids start drawing lines and lumping people together as their race, rather than as Americans. They start noticing and being hyper-aware of differences between races. Crying racism in every situation just annoys people and defeats the goal of ending racism. Racial and diversity programs make people resentful, and make the benefitting parties feel entitled. People should be chosen on merit alone. "Not seeing color" is treated as ignorant and is laughed at, but I feel that this is the best way to operate if we are ever going to solve our problems. I'd like other opinions on this because the way I see the world right now truly sickens me. I don't want to keep feeling like I am different because I am Asian, I want to feel American and be okay with the way people talk about race. I want to feel okay with the way we as Americans are dealing with these issues. I also want to understand why "not seeing color" is ridiculed. | 1 | cmv_human |
Here's what I see in my neighborhood which has 6 handicapped spots. They are almost always empty. Almost everywhere I go in my city when I'm looking for parking the handicapped spots are the only empty ones sometimes. (To this day, however, I have never parked or even briefly pulled over in a handicapped spot because it feels cruel.) The few times I see them occupied, EVERY TIME, I see a completely able bodied person leave the car. As in both are legs made of meat that are fully functional. They have the handicap badge in the car but they don't seem to have any sort of physical ailment. If you need a contraption to get the wheelchair out that seems fair, but if the person is just deaf or is missing a pinky I don't see why they need special reserved parking. I know one of these fraudsters personally, he had his because his grandfather was handicapped so they just used his handicap badge. Presumably this is ok because sometimes they have to drive him places. He kept it in his car every day and the whole family used it to park in handicap spots. From what I can tell the only people who use handicap parking spots are people with a handicapped relative not a handicapped driver. I have never seen one of those special cars for people who are disabled where they have buttons instead of pedals and a contraption that unloads a person with a wheelchair. If even ONCE I saw an actual physically disabled person exit their vehicle in a handicapped parking spot I might not even question their special parking spots. Edit: Deltas have been awarded. Many of you are right about my confirmation bias and, more importantly, that there are countless severe visible and invisible disabilities. If we could spot illnesses at a glance why would we need doctors? Thanks everyone Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
To my understanding, Common Core is a set of standards of skills that a student should learn before graduating high school. Though I am still quite some years before getting there, what I have observed in my school's mathematics system shows that these skills rely heavily on memorization and calculation, much less on reasoning, and virtually none on application. I've looked at the Common Core website and seen that these accurately reflect the standards put out. Let's take the [Common Core Algebra standards] as an example. If you scroll down to the Overview, you see that almost all of the skills listed are to solve equations or something of that sort. This is calculation. Common Core currently spends too much time on this, something relatively easy such that computers can do it. Some of this time needs to shift to the other branches of mathematics. I believe that algebra, as well as much of the rest of mathematics, should be used as a medium through which logic and reasoning are taught. Though computers can use logic to some extent, the human brain is much more capable and should be used for what it is needed for. [Here is a purely algebraic problem.] Despite the concepts being purely algebraic, it requires high levels of critical thinking and reasoning in order to solve. This is the type of multi-step problem that should be taught in high schools, but is almost always not. Common Core does not require students to display this level of critical thinking. Let's take [Geometry for another example.] If you scroll down to the Overview, these standards are somewhat better, since they introduce the notion of proof. However, on close inspection of the Congruence section, only a few basic proofs spanning a few basic proof types are necessary. These do not cover the important proof by contradiction and proof by induction, two kinds of reasoning that can be much better applied to the real world. It is also never required that the student prove any algebraic concepts, such as the quadratic formula. Most theorems in Geometry and all in Algebra are not proven, and the student is forced to memorize them. We have computers for that. We need people to prove and reason. It's also important for concepts like Geometry to be taught in conjunction with other areas of mathematics, such as Calculus. I took Geometry in 8th grade, and though that is a bit early for Calculus, the idea of limits and things like that should have at least been touched upon. Why is it that the volume of a pyramid is Bh3? The idea of taking some function to the limit makes it easy to prove this. Common Core does not cover this. So far, I've touched very little upon the idea of application, and mostly because that's the most difficult one. We know that mathematics is applied in all sorts of STEM subjects, but what if the student is already set on taking a liberal arts major? They shouldn't be forced to study engineering with math. So, I think that the application of mathematics needs to brought back to its roots, being the application of logic. Programming is great way to apply this, and though maybe math class isn't the right place for this, every student already has a programmable graphing calculator anyway. Instead of forcing students to not use programs on tests like they do at my school, I think that the use of programs should be encouraged, since they demonstrate understanding of the basis behind all mathematics, which is logic. Maybe this is straying a bit far from the purpose of Common Core, and it shouldn't be implemented as a guideline, but perhaps as a suggestion it would be great. I'll be going through Common Core for a few more years, and I want to know if it's effective. Please CMV. EDIT: Forgot to mention that I think reasoning is much more important than having formulas memorized for the real world. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Islam is a religion that spawned from the Quran, a religious text considered to be the Word of God (Allah). This religion began in the Arabian peninsula in the early 600s. Islam is not only out of date, dangerous to today's society and subversive, but it has always been a violent religion. This would be fine if Islam could be reformed. But that's the trouble with Islam. It has not been widely reformed and I'm afraid it cannot be due to its structure. Sure, it has a similar structure The concept of Dar-al-harbGarbKufr (War, War (ottoman),Infidel) and the Dar-al-Islam (IslamPeace) is one that divides the world into two; nations that follow the law of Islam (Shariah) and those that don't. Before you say that this practice is outdated and out of style, please look at Salafis, the extremist groups in the middle east, and [this fine fellow and other people like him that do not classify as salafis] . Even if the Quran is not taken literally, Shariah law still applies. I have lived in an Islamic country. You do not need to take the Hadith and Quran literally to be subject to literal Shariah law. Read here: Looking at the Malaysian legal system as a whole, sharia law plays a relatively small role in defining the laws on the country. It only applies to Muslims. With regards to civil law, the Syariah courts has jurisdiction in personal law matters, for example marriage, inheritance, and apostasy. In some states there are sharia criminal laws, for example there is the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment 1993. Their jurisdiction is however limited to imposing fines for an amount not more than RM 5000, and imprisonment to not more than 3 years. In August 2007, the then Chief Justice of Malaysia proposed to replace the current common law application in Malaysia with sharia law You can literally go to jail for renouncing Islam. It's far more serious in countries like Saudi Arabia, and 4 in 10 muslims in the UK want to establish Shariah law. In fact, there are 85 shariah law courthouses in the UK which run by court-approval basis. I personally believe that the political stress plus the fact that both parties signed an agreement to be judged by shariah law makes every case a stamp-and-go case. Before you say that both if both parties consent to it, it's alright, please think about the cultural and familial pressure of Islam and their treatment of women. We must not forget Islam's borderline slavery of women. They are covered, silenced, veiled, separated, and treated as commodity. God willing, they at least inherit half the amount a man of the same level of descendence would. I do not say that muslims are bad people and must convert to be part of today's society. I do not say that at all. In fact, I say the opposite. If anything can stop the self-indulgent hedonism of today's society it is Muslims (And Sikhs). I just say that Islam conflicts with today's society, and it cannot be wholly compatible with today's world. I do not approve of Islam. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I've lived practically my whole life on this phrase. It has shaped how I have made several important decisions in my life, though I have recently come to suspect that this may not be the whole truth. The phrase itself is fairly explanatory, but the deeper meaning behind it is that you should always be looking for some kind of satisfaction behind your work; Be it a happy customer, or a well-stocked shelf, or a cool painting. There is always something in your work that can grant you at least some menial satisfaction, but if there is not even that much then the work you are doing is not fit for doing. | 1 | cmv_human |
After every school shooting the debate gun violence in schools starts up with one side supporting reduced gun rights and the other side supporting banning violent video games. Whenever the idea of posting armed guards at schools is brought up the idea is always shot down as ridiculous. It was never given a reason why people look down upon it. I feel that posting armed guards at schools would directly deincentivize any individual from going to violent crimes at schools. And if the individual wanting to commit is suicidal than the armed guards would directly solve the problem and stop the would-be gunmen before the tragedy even starts. All other ideas on curbing gun violence doesn't seem to have the aspects of deincentification and directness that posting armed guards at schools has. That's not to say that ideas are wrong but adding this idea of armed guards to their respective platforms would, in my opinion, help curb school violence better than any of these opinions could individually. edit: I see that most peoples points are that school shootings are rare and the expenses involved would be to great. That's a legitimate and fair argument. I still think it should be brought up for discussion but I see why people look down upon it. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Human sentience (or consciousness, or sapience, or whatever term you like) is an emergent behavior of neurons and their interactions, which can be replicated in non-organic systems, i.e., computers. Thus it is likely that given advanced enough technology, we could make a digital human, or even copy an organic human to the digital world. Similarly, other neural networks can be constructed digitally, collectively known as AI. This is fairly well accepted in modern society, although there are debates over'souls' and things like that. I think that sentient AI will probably emerge first, long before we get close to digitizing humans, because of the way AI may emerge. Currently, one approach to developing advanced neural networks is to allow them grow'naturally', which is to say that the network is given some parameters to optimize, and then iterations darwinistically decide what the optimal solution is. Pretty much like carbon-based evolution, but much faster. However, I'm not an expert in the field, so I'm open to different opinions, or even alternatives not the above two options. CMV: AI will achieve sentience way before we can make computer humans. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
A multitude of films have twists in the plot, for example Gone Girl, Memento, a lot of films of M. Night Shyamalan, the Usual Suspects, Shutter Island, Fight club, well I can go on and on. [Here is a list of 100 twists] . It usually consists of a plot that advances, but with hidden information not completely revealed yet. When the information is revealed, it will heighten the liking of the plot. It feels'Mind blowing', the movie instantly goes deeper, it is suddenly a more complex movie, and twists are ideal for deep analysis and allegories. Adding a twist to a plot can make it everyone say'Wow' and that one guy say:'I knew it all along'. I think an analogy of showing why people like this so much, because it is abit like being in the plato's cave and then suddenly showing the light and deeper meaning. However, and this is my point, it is a simple and cheap way to make the movie much smarter than it initially was. I think there is also a high amount of plot twist movies in the IMDB top 250 (By no means a standard, but a good representative what is liked by movie-goers). Adding a well written plot twist makes a movie ripe for people to laud it, even though it is done to dead. Basically my point is that it is a too simple way to make a movie'smarter' and an overdone method of'blowing peoples minds'. It instantly adds points for movie-goers. As I said in the title, my point is not that is a non-amusing'plot device'. But it is a simple way to add layers in a movie. While watching a movie myself I always seem to like a twist (I thought Gone Girl did this very well and it sincerely surprised me) but afterwards when I am out of the cinema and more rational again I think'hmm, just another twistmovie'. And apart from the twist nothing really interesting going on. A well regarded movie where I didn't like the twist was'The Usual Suspects'. The cinematography and acting was obviously well done, but only looking at the plot I thought it wasn't impressive taking away the twist. I am probably triggering now a couple readers, for that I am sorry. However this is not a critique of this movie, but more of an example. I also think this is the reason why M. Night Shyamalan was so well recieved in the start of his career and now he is way less regarded than at that time. Because he does it all the time, and then it surfaces that it is a cheap movie'plot device'. If he did it only once or twice people wouldn't have noticed it significantly. (I am sorry for spelling mistakes, I am not a native speaker) Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I have been noticing the news about police officers shooting children or innocent people mistakely, and causing death or serious injuries a lot. So I thought, why would a police officer even use firearms (I mean the guns that can kill, I'm not sure since it's not my native language) if heshe doesn't intend to kill? I have seen the tranquilizer guns making animals unable to even move, so wouldn't they be quite useful? Thanks to this, they could've shoot the suspect without worrying about killing himher, and accidents where the innocent people are dying wouldn't happen. Plus, even if the suspect is really guilty, a police officer shouldn't kill him her, right? And if something happens like in the scenes we see in the movies, where the criminal takes a hostage and police officers can't shoot because they are afraid of hurting the hostage, wouldn't this make everything easier? They could've just shoot without worrying about anything, and make both the hostage and the criminal collapse? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
A few points clarifying my view: By primary language, I mean either official language (i.e. English or French in Canada) or the language most spoken by the people in that country (i.e. English in America) I don't expect fluency. My mother has lived in Canada for almost twenty years now and she still has trouble sometimes. My view is that all immigrants should strive for at the very least an [intermediate] mastery. My one exception would be if an immigrant does not have the financial capability to pay for lessons in the language of the country they've moved to. However, in Canada at least, free English lessons are offered to new immigrants, so I wouldn't see any reason to not learn the language here. Not learning the primary language of the country they've moved to encourages segregation and often leads to racial or cultural tension. By refusing to learn the primary language to an acceptable extent, they're showing a blatant refusal to adapt even a little to their new country's culture. Even if you're living in an area where you could live your entire life speaking your mother tongue, it doesn't make sense to not at least do the bare minimum to adapt. What's the point of coming all the way to another country if you're not going to respect it? Multiculturalism is wonderful and should be valued, but refusing to learn the country's language and creating enclaves is preventing multiculturalism. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I have had friendships with various males, and only one of them has not tried to at one point in time, make it sexual. This was not a big deal when I wasn't in a relationship and I would just turn them down. Once I was, they all tried much harder than usual to pursue something whereas before it was a more passive attempt. Once they realized I was "off the table" of sorts and was serious about my now boyfriend, the relationship just dwindled despite my continuing to talk to them just as much as before. I realized this was because the conversation would always be very short due to me not replying to flirtatious texts which probably got really boring for them. What I mean by men and women cannot be just friends is that one or the other (possibly both), even if not having a physical relationship, is using each other for the ego boost that comes with someone of the opposite sex giving you attention and would under other circumstances, definitely hook up (or maybe at one point in time already have). I also noticed even women who have a lot of male friends they spent a lot of time with and "friend zoned" them, they would still get weird and upset if the man was in a romantic relationship and therefore had less time to expend for her because it was going to his SO. This doesn't happen with their male friends as long as they see them enough because the male friends aren't using their male friends to feel attractive... but suddenly "just" female friends tend to get very territorial once they aren't getting the attention from the male friend that they were used to or able to get that constant validation. Of course there will ALWAYS be exceptions. But I think, on average, this all proves to be true. This is also why I am pretty uncomfortable with my boyfriend having female friends that aren't also people I've met and felt comfortable with. He can, of course, but it makes me feel uncomfortable. The one he introduced me to automatically displayed the classic signs of using him for attention and being very touchy but pretending it's simply a "brother" like relationship. I would like to be comfortable with such friendships but it seems unnecessary to me within a relationship. In a group setting is fine, of course, as long as everyone is comfortable (which doesn't seem to happen if the friend has been in the persons life longer than the SO) but I am talking about opposite sex friendships when one or both parties are in a relationship with other people...I feel they have no reason to spend a lot of time interacting or spending time together one-on-one unless they are both lying to each other (or one person is) and hoping that something will happen (sexually or otherwise) without admitting it to themselves or like the [in my opinion] inappropriate feeling of playing with fire. I hold myself to the same standard, of course. My one male friend that has not tried anything was also my roommate but I always included my boyfriend and introduced them, and they became friends even. We would hang out alone sometimes but in public (during daytime) or just while one or the other is in the kitchen cooking. I don't think anything would happen if we did drink alone, as we have before I was dating my boyfriend, but I would respect my relationship enough that I'm not really interested in doing that anyway. I also have zero sexual attraction for him and imagine this is the same with him, towards me. This is ONE of those exceptions out of the plenty of male friends who out of nowhere have tried to hook up or tell me they have feelings for me and I suspect is not the average dynamic of a male-female friendship. So while I think it MAY be possible, it is somewhat rare. Obviously my view also applies to those who are strictly in monogamous relationships. Tl;dr: Most men who have female "platonic" friends would sleep with them if the opportunity arose and if are in a relationship, only keep them around in case and because of the ego boost of being around women who aren't unattractive (to feel wanted). Most women who have male "platonic" friends are using them for the attention they get by feeling a man likes them, and can't have them to feel like a sought-after, high quality woman...and also get jealous when they begin dating a woman despite their "just friend" claims. always exceptions, but believe this to be generally true. | 1 | cmv_human |
I have been a liberal (using the binary American political scale for simplicity) for my entire adult life. I have advocated for the rights of homosexuals, women, and other groups; however, I do not feel like this stance has benefited me in the slightest. In fact, given my regional location (the South or Southeast United States) it has probably hurt me personally more than anything. I have not read Ayn Rand, nor do I ever intend to, as I consider her philosophy to be frankly immoral. Moral people should look out for their fellow humans. However, I believe that I would be better served by pursuing my own rational self-interest rather than spending even an ounce of my resources on the betterment of others who will just attribute my good deed to their god anyway most likely. Donating to charity might prevent a child from dying from cancer, but I am not a child and I don't have cancer, so that extra dollar from my pocket is better spent being used as tax on my latest board game purchase. This could be extended to other people that I consider friends, but I think it is a better use of my resources for me to aid my own comfort than to save a stranger's life. Things that will not change my view: "You aren't really describing objectivism! It really is a more nuanced..." I don't care. I am not here to argue the definition of objectivism. "My wifechildother family member was saved by..." Are you related to me? Probably not as I have never had these sorts of problems, so I don't care. It is good that your family member didn't die, but that has nothing to do with me. "What if you needed help?" I probably wouldn't get it unless I was able to provide it for myself. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I'm no professional when it comes to logic or argumentation but I have been pondering this thought lately. I am not a believer of any after life or supernatural. If after death we experience what we experienced before birth which is nothingness, then isnt life meaningless? Why should we continue to suffer when life is literally a constant suffering? I personally believe life is meaningless. When you are under the assumption that you experience nothingness when you are dead, what is the point of living? The only reason I can personally see for living is to not inflict additional emotional suffering on those that you know and care about you. But if you do experience nothingness after life then why should it matter when you wont be able to conceive of this suffering. Its been something I've been thinking a lot about lately.... Change my view, please. Also, this is not a cry for help and I will not be jumping off the golden gate bridge any time soon. | 1 | cmv_human |
The distinction between morality of abortion and its legality is often missed when discussing the pro-life and pro-choice positions. Granted, there's usually someone that brings it up somewhere down the line, but it is often well after substantial ambiguous conversation. For the purpose of this CMV, I will grant that a fetus is a human person. My views: 1. Abortion may or may not be morally permissible, though I lean towards permissible. I don't really want to discuss this aspect of it, but it's here for some background on my position. 2. Abortion should be legal, based primarily on my foundational belief on bodily autonomy. To change my view, you will probably need to change my belief that the mother's legal right to control her own body overrides the fetus' (or child's) right to use them. One of the main objections to legal abortion is the sense that the woman has incurred a sort of responsibility to the child by engaging in sex (for this CMV, I'd prefer to only consider consensual sex). While this may be true, I see it at most to be a moral obligation, not a legal one. The best analogy I've heard is as follows: Let's say you are driving recklessly and run over a pedestrian. The ambulance arrives and does a quick blood test and determines that unless you donate a pint of blood to that pedestrian, he will die. You hate needles and refuse. At the moment, you cannot be legally compelled to donate your blood. If you can't be compelled to donate blood (which is almost completely safe) to save the life of someone he recklessly endangered, a woman should not be required to donate her internal organs for 9 months to a fetus to keep it alive. EDIT: There are probably other ways in which my view could be changed, but here is the conversation that changed my view first: ugarnteller: So, let's say there was a teleporter accident that caused the second head. You knew it was a risk going in. It will take 9 months for science to clone a body to host the head. Are you still free to kill it? My realization as I thought through the implications: This is again, a very difficult question and I had to put some thought into it before responding. Since we're into sci-fi land, lets look at the probable scenario: In a world where teleportation is a common mode of transport and head grafting was a possible (if somewhat uncommon) outcome, I wouldn't want to travel without knowing that whoever I traveled with (assuming these are the only people who get head-grafted) agreed to keep my head alive until my replacement body could be found. This would be a sort of additional agreement reached between the teleporters. Even in this scenario, I would be very hesitant make it a default law.... but I could easily see that it could become that way if enough people used teleportation and the head-grafting continued to happen. So, I guess the short answer is that I am of the opinion that it should be possible to sign away a certain level of bodily autonomy to secure a level of personal safety. After all, you could be the grafted head next time. This seems to severely impact my position, since an actual analogous scenario would be where the teleporter picks up a random person (who did not choose to teleport) and has their head grafted to their body. I guess if a fetus really is a person, it probably should be illegal to abort it. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
This people are selling good feelings. Not really being able to talk to the dead or a magic pill to lose weight. They are like movies or video games. They sell a happy time and its not their fault if you believe them. If you watch Independence Day and really think aliens are invading Earth, its not Will Smith's fault even though says in the movie that aliens are invading Earth. They are entrepreneurs that have found a unique way of selling things. They aren't actually hurting anybody. People pay Teresa Caputo money and in return they get good feelings. Nobody is being hurt by her. The Food Babe may use psuedoscience and have people avoid food that doesn't actually hurt them, but people feel good about. They feel good paying extra money for her sponsors food then buying "junk food." The Thinking Mom's Revolution gives answers to parents on why their children are autistic. Sure the information is wrong. But they feel better knowing its not their fault. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I'm a young, college educated, bisexual woman who needs contraceptives for medical reasons and who doesn't believe in God. The GOP's stances on social issues are downright appalling to me. I know that people tend to surround themselves with like minded people, be it consciously or not, so the thought of the GOP being unable to ever win another presidential election has crawled into my head. (TL;DR in bold.) The social issues I'm talking about are: LGBT issues such as same sex marriage, religious freedom laws, "bathroom bills" involving trans people, etc. Their black and white stance on abortion- some of them want no exceptions for cases of terrible fetal deformities, threats to the life of the mother (Scott Walker in the last debate), rape, incest, etc. Fighting against contraceptives and the morning after pill that could prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent abortions Pushing abstinence only sex ed. [37 states allow for medically inaccurate information to be taught to students as "fact," so long as it scares them out of having sex. My school was one of the ones that taught blatantly incorrect information.] Claiming that anthroprogenic climate change isn't real, and pushing the teaching of intelligent design in public schools Marijuana legalization Being so biblereligion based when the population seems to be shifting away from religion Please please please change my view! I live in Ohio, so I really can't let myself slide into apathy thinking that the GOP has no hope of winning anything! You don't need to change my views on the social issues at hand, just convince me that another Republican president isn't out of the question! Edit 1: Wow! Lots of responses- awesome! It's going to take me a few minutes to sift through all this.:D Edit 2: Delta awarded- if a candidate like Hillary gets the democratic nomination and young people who are frustrated with government express that frustration by just staying home on election day, it will definitely give Republicans an advantage, no matter their stance on the issues. Edit 3: Please cite sources if possible. Feelings and anecdotes don't hold the same weight as things like polling data from reputable institutions, academic studies, etc. Edit 4: Another delta awarded- to uWhiskeyCoke77 for a good academic explanation of issue salience, how some voters find some issues more important than others. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
To my knowledge there are no peer reviewed sources that link GMOs to any negative health effects. There is as much reason to believe genes manipulated in a lab are inherently harmful as there is for genes selected through domestication. I am asking for a CMV because I have not done thorough research other than reading a few articles supporting my view including a recent cover story for Nat. Geo, a magazine I highly respect. However as a scientifically-minded person, I can't ignore the massive movement against GMOs without considering it first. | 1 | cmv_human |
First off, I like pandas I think they are cute and interesting; however, I think we should let that species meet whatever natural end is coming. Many valuable resources are devoted to saving the panda because pandas are extremely well known and popular, not because they have a good chance of survival. Here are the reasons I believe this: 1) Pandas have lost much of their natural habitat due to the population explosion in China. While this is regrettable, it is not likely to get fixed anytime soon. This means that even if we are able to revive this species they won't have anywhere to live. 2) pandas, as a species, have chosen poorly. They are carnivorous animals who's main diet is bamboo. Their digestion can only process about 5 of the stuff in bamboo. That means they have to eat huge amounts of bamboo everyday. With the reduced habitat this is getting harder and harder. Either they need some microevolutionary shift to eat more nutritious sources of food orthey should join the likes of the dodo bird. 3) human efforts to revive the population have shown some increases, but at what cost? It is incredibly difficult to get pandas to mate with one another, it's like they don't even want their species to survive. I get they aren't actually making this choice, this is just a facetious way of saying that their instincts and biology do not support the kind of growth in population hey need. Hell, half of their births are twins and the mother almost always lets one die because she doesn't produce enough milk. I realize this would take evolution to fix and this problem is way too short term, but it means that their survival requires an exorbanant amount of human intervention. Since their is a finite amount of resources conservationists can dedicate to endangered resources they are killing other more likely to survive species. 4) I'm not saying we should encourage the decline of the panda. We should still try to preserve what habitat they have left and ban hunting them, but they are so far gone and require so much help that we shouldnt waste too many resources on them. Let the panda try to support a small and natural population without our interference. If they cannot achieve this goal, I don't think it's worth the resources to help them grow. | 1 | cmv_human |
First of all, I wouldn't do this personally because I don't mind walking. I don't even look for close parking spots. This discussion is purely hypothetical looking at the issue from an objective point of view. This post was inspired by a question I posted to rlegaladvice and was told that it's a douche move. I didn't feel it was appropriate to discuss the douchiness of it there so I decided to make this post. You go into a parking lot and are trying to find a place to park. There's one 15 spots away from the door and then there's one that's 3 spots away from the door. One of them is meant for expectant mothers but there is no punishment for parking there if you are not an expectant mother which makes the two spots equivalent in everything expect for distance from the door. Objectively, it's better to choose the closer one. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I believe we should all be held accountable for our actions, both verbal and non-verbal. I believe folks say hurtful and mean things online that they wouldn't say we're they face to face with their victim. In the rules of this very sub it requests us to be respectful of one another. Shouldn't that go without saying via the golden rule? Why is the Internet the exception? For the record, what I mean by "basic info" is enough info that our mother could identify us (first name, last initial, city, stateprovince, country, age group, sex). I do NOT mean enough info that we be could be found by extremist bigots who disagree. As an alternative, why shouldn't sites offer two comment sections: Open and Anonymous. This way if you want to be an asshole, you still can, but the would-be victim and rest of us can take comfort that you wouldn't have the brass to say it without mask. | 1 | cmv_human |
Hi guys! To expand: Although I would happily call someone who went from being a man to a woman for example) a woman to their face and when talking about them, I still don't believe they are truly that gender. Despite having surgery, having that mindset and having hormone treatment, I can't feel fully comfortable referring to them as a woman - just from a technical standpoint. I feel as though I'm lying to myself. Disclaimer: I am not homophobic or anything of the sort. I completely agree with people doing what they want to do and I completely believe people can be'trapped' in the body of the opposite gender. | 1 | cmv_human |
In our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person's body autonomy. In fact, forcing one to have sex when they don't want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission. Telling someone that they can't get a medical procedure done (or, likewise, telling that they HAVE to get a medical procedure done) is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress. In that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with? Sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity. People dictating what their SOs do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling. Adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they aren't physically forcing another person to do something. Forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have. I can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other. It's just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your SO to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship. I understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm. If you want a monogamous relationship and your SO sleeps with someone else, then you shouldn't be mad at your SO. You should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways. Getting angry would be controlling your SO and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body. And just for clarification: I am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their SOs. I am more stating that it should be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your SO sleep with no one besides you. Also, I wanted to point out that I am purposefully not using particular genders. It is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he can't have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing. So, please. Change my view! Why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Rappers are not talented. They do what anyone can do. Anyone is capable over saying words over a beat. Some rappers don't even try to make sense, or be clever. I can't believe rappers are allowed to win grammies and different music awards. Poets should be allowed to win grammies too then. Rap to me is like in the same category as a terrible singer sometimes. Every person on this earth that can speak is capable of rapping. You can't say the same for singers, that can sing on key. You might say, it takes skill to rap well. No it doesn't. It takes time, and a pen and paper. It can be mastered relatively easy. Please show me why they deserve to be respected as musicians. Edit 1: Okay uscottevil110 pointed out to me, performing, or the entertainment value is a big part of a rappers act. It takes tremendous confidence and talent to get on stage and move a crowd with your lyrics. Some rappers are capable of this so, I changed my view that some have talent in that regard, but as far as the actual rapping I still believe that I could truthfully be the next Meek, or Young Thug. Edit 2: Let me clarify what talent is to me. I already know what the webster definition is, the natural ability or aptitude to do something. Let's take young thug as an example and Lamarr. They're both rappers and make good music I like. Everyone who can talk has the ability to come up with the words young thug says, and say it like him in a drunken stupor. So everyone is talented then in some way. Lamar it would take longer, and he has a nice flow, but still it could be easily copied. Now, REAL talent to me, is a perormance like Keyshia Cole singing [Love] one of the greatest songs of all time. Or Peter Green ripping the shit out of a guitar, in songs like, need your love so bad, or [the supernatural] . That's REAL talent, compared to something like [this] . REAL talent is something that not your average jor could do. Some are born with it. For some it takes years to become good at it, but it has to have a level of difficulty, in my view, that the average person can't easily attain. Edit 3: uglory2hypnotoad showed me writing a full length album on Eminems level does take I guess some real skill. So there are a few rappers who have some real talent. But generally they are untalented. However every singer that can sing on key is talented to me. It's just in a whole'nother caliber of music to me, for the simple reason it's next to impossible to attain. Comparing Eminem to any singer that can sing on key, is like comparing Iman Shumpert to Lebron James. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
If you genuinely have an interest in an European country or language, then that beats any reason to learn an East Asian one. However, learning Mandarin Chinese, Japanese or Korean is more valuable than learning any European language. -Travel It's easier for Europeans to learn English and harder for East Asians to learn English. Most Europeans at the very least speak basic English, and most East Asians only know English words. You can travel across Europe only knowing English, but in East Asia it helps more to know the language. I don't consider places like South America and China to be developed enough to travel through, other than tourist spots catering to English speakers. -Media When it comes to media, East Asian countries have their own isolated worlds. Going through their music, films, television and books can almost feel like visiting an alien world since so little reaches the west. Specifically Japan and South Korea are economic powerhouses and understand the importance of [soft power] , and as a means produce a lot more films, music, games, comics, literature and TV than any European or South American country. -Availability European languages have more speakers than East Asian languages, but most Europeans already speak English. For an American there may be a lot Latin American immigrants, but there are Asian immigrants everywhere in the world. East Asian languages might not be as widely available, but their populations are educated, travel a lot, and have [more native speakers than other European languages.] -Difficulty East Asian languages are said to be notoriously hard by Europeans, but with technology in just the recent years it has become a lot easier. Chinese characters, hangul and Japanese writing systems can now be learned on your smartphone by playing games with apps like memrise or anki. A lot of European-language speakers complain about how complex European grammar tends to be, whereas East Asian grammar often is "logical" and straight to the point (with exceptions, as any language). If you disclude writing systems, East Asian languages would be easier to learn as a spoken language than European ones for someone who has experience with neither. -Cultural benefits It's almost as if their worlds are isolated from ours. Learning a widely different language helps us understand the structures of our own languages. Learning about a completely different culture helps us understand the uniqueness of our own culture. European cultures are often so similar that we only tend to think of simple things as being differentiating between countries, but what makes us unique as westerners becomes much more apparent when compared to a country at the other side of the world. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I'm not a cop hater. I like to think I'm a relatively reasonable person but I'm honestly not even 100 sure how I really feel with the constant barrage of news stories about police breaking the law and victimizing regular citizens. I replied to another redditor saying to basically always do what a cop says [here] Section of his comment If a police officer asks you to do something, you do it. Pretty much without exception. If you wish to challenge the police officer's legal right to do something, the proper venue is in Court and not in the street. and my reply That's horse-shit buddy Despite the sheer magnitude of the amount of recent cases of police blatantly abusing their power with zero retribution I am still of the opinion that most officers are genuinely decent people. But like any other human, they carry inclinations for benevolence AND iniquity. Honest intentions sadly don't always equal righteous actions and authority must be challenged. Always. Full stop. I'm not some edgy teenage anarchist. The police work for the public. They need to constantly be held accountable and should never be beyond reproach You say the proper venue to challenge the police's legal right to do something is in the courts; I say the proper venue is any and everywhere. I do believe this but reading it back to myself and trying to see it from someone else point of view I feel like I sound like some kind of deluded government conspiracy theorist. EDIT: It's been pointed out that my title is shitty and misleading. I'll restate my position better but as of now I no longer hold that view specifically. Cops have authority. I fully support that. I believe it's necessary for a society to function for there to be people to enforce the law by means greater than what the average citizen should be allowed. I also believe those enforcers should be held to a higher moral standard. That they should not violate the reach of the powers we give them. And that if they do, we, the very people that gave them the power in the first place, have our own duty to not allow it despite such disobedience being an often unsafe and likely consequential undertaking. Might doesn't make right. I definitely don't want to get my ass beat andor thrown in jail for pissing off the wrong cop by not letting him violate my rights and despite my position I don't know if I would have the courage in the moment to stand up to a weaponized bully but I do know it would be the right thing to do. Maybe not the smart thing, but the right thing. I'm not saying to go around saying the fuck the police and disobeying them for no reason. I'm saying only show deference when they are acting appropriately. | 1 | cmv_human |
Where a restaurant's pizza quality can range from amazing to average, frozen pizza ranges from average to inedible. There is no overlap; even the very best frozen pizza isn't as good as the worst pizza you can find in a restaurant. I have searched for years trying to find frozen pizza that's half as good as even Little Caesar's, but to no avail. I've come to terms with the fact that every variety has low-quality sauce and not enough cheese. What I can't stand, however, and definitely the most common flaw, is the terrible, terrible crust, which ends up either undercooked or bone dry, without fail. I understand that pizza can only be properly cooked using a pizza stone, but it completely baffles me that this is the best we can do without one in 2015. | 1 | cmv_human |
I don't personally feel that the arguments against meat eating (morality, sustainability) have enough depth andor meaning that directly affects me or others around me to make me feel as though I don't want to eat meat. I honestly do want this view changed or at least challenged cause I feel as though the majority of arguments I have heard have been weak and haven't appealed to me, but I am quite naive about the subject overall. I eat meat because it's delicious, less effort and price isn't really a thing for me as I am 17 and living with my parents, but why shouldn't I eat meat? | 1 | cmv_human |
Being transgender and wanting surgeryhormonal treatment is being so uncomfortable with yourself as a person that you need invasive surgery, or completely body-altering hormonal treatment to feel comfortable. I think that the only reason we don't define it as that is political correctness, combined with the stigma around mental illness. Transgender people don't want to be lumped in with other people with mental illnesses because there is a such a stigma against it. And if society starts treating transgender people as having no mental issue, and accepting invasive surgery as the standard treatment then that will slow research towards less drastic treatments. Ideally, in the future, if someone were to come into a doctor's office and say "I feel so bad in my current body that I want hormonal treatment and invasive surgery" the doctor would be able to prescribe something that would just make the transgender person no longer feel terrible in their current body. Edit: I always hate doing controversial topics and just sacrificing my comment karma in a sub. Please think about why you're downvoting before you do. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I've (M) grown up in a very accepting family where they accept me for who I am and how I express myself. Now, I can't say that for some of my friends or the people who have gone through that with family or people in general. As I was walking with my date (M) through town, a group of college students started laughing at us for holding hands. As we were walking by, I kept thinking of all the ways I could get them to stop because if they were to laugh at us, who else are they gonna make feel humiliated or disgusting. I felt like a pet. Some play toy. And that my life was humorous to other people. I can't say that there would be anything to say or do to make them realize that it's normal to appeal to the same sex. I'm ALL FOR education. I believe education makes the world go around and it's so perfect to learn abd understand new things about the world AND be open minded to everything. However, when I see a group of people act ignorantly, I can't help but clench my fist and think about raising hell in their life. The people they are are the kind that take pleasure in hurting people. Why? Because they want to do it for themselves. They can only think about themselves and that they're more perfect than everyone else. I sure as hell am not perfect. I resort to violence when it comes down to this topic. But when I hear or see ignorance made to hurt others, like this . I can't help but feel like this ignorance needs to be dealt with a punch in the face. Nobody deserves what I got. And nobody deserves the ignorance others recieve. Ignorance stems from close mindedness, which is something in this world we don't need. If we were all close minded, we wouldn't have advanced as far as we have. Do we really need more of it in this world? Is it necessary for our survival? I believe so to the extent that when there is an absolutely close minded person,there is an equally absolutely open minded person (the bell curve). So to deal with these people is to punish them with hurt nowhere near the pain they've inflicted onto people, while still sending a message. CMV Edit: I know violence won't get me anywhere. Are there any other solutions besides time, education and ignorng other people that can remedy the situation more directly? | 1 | cmv_human |
As more and more people in the developed world are becoming obese, many governments have begun to tax various foods they deem unhealthy because they are allegedly contributing to this epidemic. While pigovian (no pun intended) taxes of this kind may have been effective for things like alcohol or tobacco, I believe they only work when the tax makes up the majority of the price of the product. An extra ten cents on his morning can of gravy isn't going to make fatso switch to Slimfast. Unfortunately doubling or tripling the price of junk food would completely destroy the market for these things and put manufacturers out of business almost immediately. This is because there are easy untaxed alternatives to junk food, unlike booze and cigarettes. Granted you could grow your own tobacco and brew your own beer, but that takes months, while making junk food from tax-free ingredients takes minutes. Plus if a steak cost the same as a bag of chips people would simply become obese on sirloin rather than Doritos. Raising the price of food like this would also be harmful to the poor, especially considering junk food often provides the most calories for your dollar, and is thus essential for many poor people to meet their daily nutritional requirements. Say what you want about a diet high in fat and sugar, it's still healthier than starvation. In addition it's grossly unfair to punish everybody when it's only the obese that need to cut back. Even alcohol and tobacco would be relatively harmless in moderation, but in practice it would be too difficult for a vendor to tell if someone is an alcoholic chain-smoker or if they have self-control. On the other hand, much to their chagrin, nobody has ever mistaken an obese person for slim, no matter how strong the elastic in their girdle. Unfortunately if such a system were implemented many fatties would cheat it by having skinny friends or relatives buy their junk food for them. The only viable solution as I see it would be not to tax food, but rather pants, say by 5-10 per inch the waistline is larger than the inseam. This would ensure that only the fat would have to pay fat taxes. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
This CMV is not about whether you or I believe aliens exist. It is about the widely held point of view: if you don't think alien life exists elsewhere in the universe, you're crazy. I understand where this view comes from; the [Universe is so unimaginably huge] and so filled with [galaxies] , and therefore stars, and therefore [planets] , there simply must be other life out there. My view is that this approach is fundamentally unscientific and should not be held because it is based on probability and not actual scientific evidence. My background: I am a physics and astronomy teacher, and I teach about this subject in depth every year. I think about it and research it often. I'm well acquainted with the [Drake Equation] , the [Fermi Paradox] and [its many possible solutions] , the [Great Filter] , and the debate over alien life in general. My own belief in the matter used to be strongly on the 'of course aliens exist out there' side, but I thought the distances were just too vast for us to ever observe them. However, my opinion was strongly shifted by the book Alone in the Universe by [John Gribbin] , and I now think that the great profusion of life here on Earth is so rare that we are alone in the Universe. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely open to the idea of aliens existing. I kind of hope they do, as long as they don't destroy us all! But until we get any kind of scientific evidence that they exist - an organized signal, clear alien-made trace elements on a planet's spectroscopy, anything measurable - I think the correct scientific approach is that they don't exist. CMV. Edit 1: Some good thoughts in here, thanks. Also, some incorrect assumptions about what I'm saying. Probability is of course a useful scientific tool, the key to our understanding of quantum mechanics. But guesses about the Drake Equation boil down to probability based on no data, quite different from the data-based probability of QM. The most compelling argument that I've read below is that because we know life happened once in the Universe with us, it could happen again. Physical laws of symmetry point to the idea that there are no unique events in the Universe. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's given me something to think about. And so the crux of the argument comes down to abiogenesis, life from non-life. Is it easy or hard? Could it have happened only once? Alone in the Universe argues that a LOT of things had to go just right for us to exist. I call these things'Drake's Denominator' in class the scores of things that went just right for us that might kill the huge totals of galaxies, stars, and planets. Edit 2: Delta awarded, thanks all for your thoughts. I realized that even the single data point we have about life, life here on Earth, makes it possible for other life to exist out there. We don't have any evidence yet, but it's not unscientific to imagine that it exists. I still think life is exceedingly rare out there, and perhaps we're alone. The strange thing is that we'll probably never know. The story about [Vlad the Astrophysicist] is closer to my main view about aliens in general civilizations pop in and out of existence in no time at all, never having the chance to reach out across space and communicate. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
To me, a human's well-being and enjoyment always trump an animal's. It's why we can morally justify continuing to eat meat despite rampant abuse of animals and despite no specific human need to continue to eat meat in much of the western world. This is the same thing; most of the time, we aren't hunting because we need to, we're hunting because we want to. What this selective outrage over Cecil tells me is that we, as a society, simply don't have any unified logic towards how we are supposed to treat animals and instead attach our moral views of animal treatment to whatever our culture finds fashionable. Walter James Palmer is potentially going to face criminal charges while Tyson and Perdue make an industry out of their treatment of animals. There is little difference. Edit: My opinion on this has been changed. Cecil's existence as a national treasure to Zimbabwe is enough to justify selective outrage. Moreover, Cecil's death specifically highlights issues inherent in illegal poaching. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Generally speaking, you have two sides on the "Fat Debate": the fat acceptance movement (Healthy At Every Size, etc.) and the fat shamers (who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions. First of all, I don't buy HAES. I believe that anyone of any size can be healthier at that size. If I start jogging once a week, I probably won't lose weight, but I'll be a teeny-tiny bit healthier and that's good. Secondly, BMI is an overall population indicator. There are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range. Same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range. However, I would state that in general, the further you slide on the scale from 22.5 in either direction, the further you're getting from optimal. However, wherever people lie on that scale - underweight - optimal - fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever. You are not a stakeholder in a stranger's health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people's appearance. If you are stakeholder in their health (and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person's healthcare practitioners) then maybe you get to say something. Maybe. The best analogy for this is smoking. I smoke and am slightly overweight (10lb) and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds. I know that smoking is bad for me - I'm not an idiot. I view the HAES as a bit like "Healthy No Matter How Much You Smoke." It's not true, it may even be damaging. On the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ain't a bad thing. Attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone. It does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me. Their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits. They may even reinforce them. It is none of their business if I smoke. You know when you're eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you? That, at best is what fat shamers come off like. I'm not saying there shouldn't be public health campaigns (much like we have anti-smoking campaigns), just that YOU PERSONALLY should never say a damn thing about a stranger's weight, EVER. EDIT: Good discussion, guys. I'm going on a delta spree now, because as uThereOnceWasAMan put it: "OPs view is that "others' weight is none of your business," not "you shouldn't shame people for being overweight." They are annoyingly correct in that that is how I should have phrased it. EDIT 2: Work has come up and I have to run off for the evening. I'll come back to this to give s to the deserving. Sorry for the delay! Don't bully fat people, kids. It helps no one. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I'm a really bad student, like a really bad student. In certain classes I simply do not do the homework and in all classes I rarely ever study. I understand perfectly where this will get me, but I am simply not willing to throw all my time and energy into things I see as unnecessary. Don't get me wrong I'm not some party high schooler, quite the opposite really. I am an all honors student with many AP classes that I have been scheduled to take next year after taking one AP class this year (sophomore year). I don't waste my time with things I see as trivial and slowly school has turned into something I see as trivial. Instead of doing my school work I spend timing learning how to program or watching a documentary on issues in this world. I write, I read, and I just try to learn everything I can but just not at school. I feel like I need the freedom to choose what I do and when I do it and I am just not allowed this with school. Every morning I wake up at 6:45 sit through painstakingly boring classes with rare highlights as there is just one or two classes I can somewhat enjoy. If there's a test it's a 5050 that I'll turn it in half blank and if it's a lecture or some other activity I'll tune in only once awhile to get the gist of the lesson. I sometimes look around to my peers and see people with 4.0 gpa's who are completely focused on school. I see them during free periods doing all the work assigned and I see them get mad when they get 2 points taken off. When I see this I can appreciate the effort, but at the end of the day there are literally thousands of other people just like them. Every school in the country has a couple valedictorians who will all be competing to get into the "best" colleges and a majority of them will not make it. I think I understand the importance of college and I feel like I would excel at some of the top university, but as of now I not chasing that 4.0 gpa required to get there and I don't see myself doing that anytime soon. I love to learn, I really love to learn and I teach myself new things I find interesting and useful everyday. That passion continues grow but it's pushing me away from going to the best colleges which I have been told will allow me to achieve the things I want to do. So please tell me why I should need to get that 4.0 gpa and go to the best of the best of colleges. I want to help the world, but I'm not sure I'm going about it in the right way. Edit: Thanks for all the advice guys. It's been very helpful and I'll be visiting this thread in the future when my determination will inevitably falter. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Edit: I have offered a delta in this thread, but I would really like more responses, because the one I offered a delta to was for a bit of a pedantic point. Please don't let it dissuade you from answering. Also, the title should read: "there is no consistent moral framework." The mere existence of a framework is not a very interesting point to debate. A few things first: I do eat meat, and I don't want have sex with animals. I believe both eating meat and having sex with animals are wrong. I think that the reason that I eat meat despite believing it is wrong is that it's simply what I've been doing my whole life. Okay, so, the best argument I know for it being immoral to have sex with animals is that they are incapable of consent and that therefore sexual behaviour with animals is rape. I cannot imagine that any animal would give its consent to dying just in order to satisfy a person's appetite. Furthermore, I don't see a moral difference between acts of bestiality and some methods of animal husbandry. Consider this how-to on collecting bull semen for the purpose of analysis: How can anybody claim that a bull would consent to the insertion of an electric probe into its anus and how is that morally different from a zoophile inserting their penis into a bull's anus? I don't see a justification for either behavior on'natural' grounds because while I think that both the consumption of meat and the desire to have sex with animals can come about naturally (that is to say, not artificially) there are plenty of things which occur naturally (rape, infanticide, kidnapping) that we all agree are immoral. After giving out three deltas, I think my view on the question as I posed it has been changed. I think if I could go back in time I would probably have said "CMV: If it is immoral to have sex with animals, then it is immoral to eat them" but as far as the existence of consistent moral frameworks justifying one of the behaviours but not the other, I am thoroughly convinced. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
A few months back there was a tragic case where a poor young girl accidentally shot a Superviser at a gunrange. The girl was nine year old and firing a Uzi submachine gun on full automatic. From some comments various people have left on this and the reporting it seems that it is not unusual for kids even younger then that to shoot real firearms. This is ridiculous. Children (and I define that in this case as everyone under 18) are not nearly responsible enough to handle them. There is a reason we do not let little children drive cars or drink alcohol etc. Childrens Brains (and even young adult's, but you have to draw the line somewhere) are still in the process of developing. We all have done stupid shit as children. Hell, just here on reddit I read about some guy who shot his brother twice as a kid. You may choose not be believe that story, but for me it seems plausible. I know btw that the Instructor in this case made some critical mistakes as well, and that children shooting firearms have to be supervised. But still, if the Girl had the experiance, wisdom and patience that comes with being an adult, this would have never happened. An adult acts as another layer of protection to prevent an accident. In my view, having a child handle a firearm is a little like not exercising proper trigger discipline. If you do everything else right, nothing bad can really happen. But you should never rely on doing everything else right. You might know some very mature and patient 14 year old who is really interested in hunting or sport shooting. In that case, congratulations. But I still stand by my view that that kid should wait and grow four more years. Sure, they might not get to shoot for four your years, but nobody will die. EDIT: ucaw81 has slightly changed my view. Now I think only people under the age of 16 should be barred. EDIT 2: uincruente and uZorthianator have completely changed my view. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Hi. Whenever I read about people trying to - increase the number of women in science or engineering - increase the number of women in politics - increase the number of women in positions of power - increase the number of women that are firefighters or police I can't help feeling that it is a rather useless cause. I have no problem at all with there being less women than men in any place. What I would (and do) have a problem with is women having it more difficult than men to enter certain professions. That is the real problem we should, as a society, try to solve. The current approach is "forcing" the proportion of women to increase, by means of: - gender-specific student grants, - positions reserved for women, - lower physical requirements, - etc. As I see it this kind of solutions are problematic in two ways: - They involve so-called "positive discrimination," which leads to cases where a candidate gets ahead of a fitter one only because the former is a woman. This is absurd and can increase animosity in the male coworkers. Admittedly, that would be wrong on their part, but it still can create an hostile work environment. - They don't solve the real issue, which is the discrimination that would have stopped the women from getting the job. They may be able to overcome it thanks to external help, but even if we have solved the symptoms the problem is still there. The only benefits I see is that "artificially" increasing the number of women in certain places may make the presence of women in said place appear less "unusual" to society, thereby decreasing the discrimination, but I still think they do more harm than good. Reddit, change my view! PD: English is not my first language, so I apologize for any awkwardly phrased sentence I may have written, and welcome any correction. EDIT: In only a few hours there have been a lot of great answers that have confirmed my feeling that this was a more nuanced issue that I could even imagine. My view has been changed in that I had underestimated the benefits of this kind of measures. In particular I now see that: - Artificially increasing the number of women in certain fields makes said fields much less "threatening" to other women. - Makes male coworkers appreciate the capabilities of women, decreasing further discrimination. - Improves the selection process by eliminating male-favoring biases. Whenever a man less prepared than a woman would have got the position by conscious or unconscious biases a well-prepared woman will get it. I remain unconvinced that physical tests should have easier versions for women. Most people seemed to agree with me on this, though. I have realized, however, that jobs that at first seem to be mainly physical (police, firefighters,...) would also benefit from having more women. Some of my favourite answers, where you can find studies supporting all of this, are: uYxoque: uwaldrop02: uclairebones: uyesthatsright: Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Alright, so, I was challenged by a friend of mine to post this here for discussion, and while I am open to ideas to modify it or drop it entirely, I will only do so if you can actually change my mind. I will not give up easily. I believe I can change this country, better yet, this world for the better. The whole idea behind what I am about to say relates back to evolution. Humans do not allow evolution to take place properly. We save the weak. I personally believe that we should execute the weak. yes, this sounds harsh but let me explain why. We are not advancing as a race. For now though, we will keep it to America for the sake of the argument and hope the rest of the world catches on. Another massive problem we are facing is over population, we are using our resources and producing waste and pollution and mind blowing rates. You look at animals and if an animal doesn't want to eat, it dies, if a human doesn't want to eat, it has an eating disorder and is treated for the disorder. More importantly that human is allowed to procreate. We allow shitty genetics to be passed on. We SAVE the WEAK. We also allow these morbidly obese, incredibly stupid people live and breed. If an animal in the wild isn't fit, or cannot attract a mate, it will die and or be unable to pass on its genetics. Humans may be fat and physically repulsive but if they have money they can still get women and still have children, which fucks with the gene pool. I could go on for longer in this section but if more reasoning is necessary I'll continue on later. Now to determine who is to be executed. The type of people I want to execute are people who are not able to make a contribution to society. If you weigh 500 pounds but you're incredibly smart, you can still make a contribution to society. The opposite is also true, if you're borderline retarded but you're very physically fit, you can also contribute to society. People who are mentally unstable shall also be executed as we wouldn't want their genetics passed on and they are a threat to the gene pool we are creating. What will determine who is executed: At the age of 14 years old, annual testing will begin based on birthday. There will be three tests, a mental test, a physical test, and a psychological test. Your Mental test exactly 3 months after your birthday and your physical test 9 months after your birthday. Tests will vary depending on your age, the older you get the harder they become, until the age of 20 where they will remain the same until 35 and gradually work their way down until the age of 65 where no further testing will be required. At the age of 20 we will also introduce psychological testing which will continue until the age of 65. What the tests will consist of: The mental test will be a basic evaluation of your ability to do math, your ability to read and write, and your basic understanding of the sciences. This test should not be difficult, anyone who has at least a D average in school should be just fine. For the physical test, every age group will be required to complete a mile in 16 minutes. This is a very easy time to make, you can walk that pace. Physical tests will include varying push up or sit up tests depending on age group. There may be a few other exercises required in certain age groups, and the amount of repetitions will also vary depending on age. this should be easy for anyone who isn't morbidly obese. Next is the psychological test. These will be administered every 5 years to insure mental stability and health of everyone. We want the mental health of our gene pool to be good as well. Lastly, there will be certain ways to be omitted to testing, ALL WILL BE FROM SOME SORT OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY, the main one being in the military. If you served in the military without being dishonorably discharged, you will be exempt from any further testing in your lifetime. Another example of a way to be omitted from testing is by paying for it. The cost will be 25,000 per year, per person. Many will be angry that it's giving more power to the rich, but I see it as a valid way of determining someones potential for making a contribution to society. If you are rich, I will almost guarantee you are either physically fit enough or mentally fit enough to pass the tests and you would have been fine anyway. AN IMPORTANT NOTE: You will only have to pass 2 out of 3 tests. How we will execute people: We will set up an organization in charge of carrying out testing and executing people. My idea is to possibly have the military be in charge of this, though I haven't had the time to think too much into that, this I am very open to other ideas on. The method of execution I think will be best is the firing squad. 8 men, 2 with real bullets to ensure death, 6 with blanks for the obvious reason. For those who are unaware, my understanding is that firing squads use primarily blanks so the gunmen aren't aware of who actually killed the person so they don't have trouble with living life after killing someone. Now another thing I would like to do that isn't executing people, but will improve our gene pool is preventing certain people from having children. People with MORE THAN two generations of diagnosed cancer or potentially terminal illnesses that tend to be passed on genetically will be sterilized. These people will not be allowed to produce offspring, however we will make it easy for them to adopt if they would like to have children. I would also like to place a limit on the amount of children a person may have. The maximum number of children a person may have is 3, which is a very reasonable amount. It should slow the rate of population increase or possibly make the population decrease due to some couples not having children or only having 1 child. There is no reason to have more than 3 children because at that point you're just putting a burden on society. If say you already have 2 children and you would like to have a third but you end up with twins, triplets, or even more, you will be allowed to keep them as it wasn't your intent to have that many. When you hit the limit for children you will be sterilized. This is all I can think of for now, if I remember more of my plan I will post. So reddit users, change my view. | 1 | cmv_human |
before you guys bombard me with downvotes I would simply like to point out that I am not saying this is true. I am just expressing my conditional views that I am forced to live with. these are obviously the views I wish you guys could help me conquer. to get started I'm pretty sure that by now you guys are probably thinking "this fool has spend too much time at rtheredpill." but I'm not gonna lie, I was a member there once. in fact I had this mentality years before being part of that subreddit. it wasnt till last year when they decided to banned me over some stupid post that I finally woke up and ended up realizing how stupid and ignorant I been by using such sexist tactics to fulfill the grudges I held towards women for my past unsuccessful moments with them. I simply moved on and said "fuck it! I dont want to be miserable like these guys." anyways growing up I was always conditioned to believe that we men are always happy and conformed with life just as long as we got a vagina to stick our penises in whenever it is available to us while women in the other hand dont just want a penis in them. they only want a penis that... -will provide for them and take care of them in the long run -is as hot as Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt or Christian Bale -that is rich and wealthy -that's gonna give them the will and ability to make all their other girlfriends jealous -and the list goes on anyways those these things are common logic in today's society unfortunately I know that this cant always be the case. I feel like I got these things engraved in my conscious now and no matter how much I try to see it from a positive perspective I always get a rush of negative thoughts from my past experiences and old believes that force me to end up back in the old pessimistic mindset that I been stuck with all of my life. so can anyone please help me conquer this mindset once and for all? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Recently I have begun to fell that when news of these executions comes through on the news many people read about it, talk about how awful it is, then move on to the next news story and give the subject little other thought. I think that watching these videos would have a much greater impact on people and make them more likely to do something to help. Personally, if I watch videos like this I feel sick and it disturbs me for about half a week. I cannot forget about them easily. Just reading about these events does not have this effect and I can forget about the issues relatively quickly. Secondly I am sure some people cannot visually imagine how horrific these events are. Being exposed to footage of it will be a shock and a wake up call to how bad life can be for some people. This in turn will make them more likely to take action. I will make it plain that I do not think people should be viewing these sorts of videos for entertainment of any kind. Finally it seems I am not alone, [this article] may help you understand my argument better than I can express it. EDIT: Some of the responses have made me realise that what I am suggesting would have different effects on different people and as such viewing these videos may not always cause people to act in a positive way as it has with me. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
"Normal" (adj.) Conforming to the standard or common type. By the above definition, we can be sure that there is a'Normal' human being. Or at the very least, various'Normal' states to make up a'Normal' human being. Anything that is in the majority is a'Normal' state. So, the'Normal' human being is a Cisgendered, Heterosexual, Chinese man. This means that states such as Transgender, Homosexual, Autistic etc. are not'Normal'. They are in fact'different'. and we desperately need to stop acting as if they are normal. They are different. This does not mean they are worse, undesirable or negative. Nor does it mean they are better, desirable or positive. They are simply different. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
My girlfriend's roommate is a Kindergarten teacher in a very large US City who came home practically sobbing because of one of the kids in her class. The kid's mother insists he doesn't act up at home, but the teacher has called her multiple times about her son's behavior. She can't take away recess from kids. She can only send them to the office for 20 minutes at a time. She's not allowed to take pictures or videos of the kids (but she showed us picturesvideos of the kid that day breaking into drawers, throwing stuff, yelling, rolling up carpets, etc). Attempts to discuss the kid with admins are shrugged off. The teacher is very upset because the other kids have complained that they can't learn and some are beginning to follow suit of the shitty kid. I know this is one example, but her school isn't even among the worst, and it isn't as if teachers inability to control students, despite their wishes to, is surprising. We've all heard about terrible parents, helicopters, complaining about grades etc. I've had the fortune of going to private schools my entire life (though perhaps that is more due to growing up in one of the worst public school districts in the country). One of the effects of that is that they could discipline you as they saw fit. If you acted shitty, you missed recess, had to call your parents, had to write on the chalkboard, had to stay in the office, got yelled at, etc. Public schools, of course, are another matter and it seems like teachers, the very people entrusted with educating the future, are powerless to do their jobs properly. So tell me, is our educational system that fucked because of shitty parents, shitty kids, and shitty administrators, or is it really not that bad? CMV. Edit: This was interesting, but prolonged discussion didn't really change anything. The semantics of my view appeared to be discussed more than my view itself or any opposing view. To quote uyertles, "Anecdotal evidence trumps no evidence at all. Burden of proof isn't going to change my view." Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Edit: I get it. In adverse conditions manual will triumph over automatics, and in certain hill situations along with easy repair and longevity. I don't see many compelling arguments for coupes other than they look cool or may be easier to park in places you wouldn't want to be driving anyways. Economy coupes used to be a budget choice for younger people who didn't need the space, so auto companies can also save money on two doors. Marginally better gas mileage may be an incentive as well. High end luxury sport car manufacturers can argue that the coupe offers better aerodynamicslower weight to improve performance and handling.Today, coupes cost the same if not more than the same model sedan. I don't believe a slimmer profile can noticeably improve performance in an economy 140HP car, similarly, I find the fuel economy improvement from 30 to 32 mpg hard to justify the loss of two doors at the same price. Automatic transmission performance used to be inferior to manuals, and an expert could handle a car with manual significantly better than an auto. Today, the highest performance cars come with automatics, and manual often isn't an option anymore. Even in models that offer both, the 0-60 and quarter mile speed is quite a bit better in the automatic, which offers "manual shifting" anyways. I believe that their long history and inferior counterparts has created a aura of superiority over automatics, similar to the Stradivarius violins. Due to production quantities, a manual transmission costs the same as automatic if not more. This leaves me with only a few situations where one would practically want a coupe: High end 400-500 HP sportscars which accelerate and go fast enough that the profile and marginal weight makes a difference. And for manual transmission: Old classic imitation cars for the nostalgia? They're plainly under performing now. Whenever I see a Bentley or Benz S550600 coupe, I cringe a bit since they're very obviously not performance based cars. Manual freaks who refuse to own any other cars also seem illogical as hell. Any thoughts? Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I'm posting this hoping that someone will point out what I might be missing or that I can begin to understand why Spirited Away, for example, sits so high in top movie list rankings. I am a westerner who has had exposure mainly to western film but also enjoys many other film types and cultures including Japanese and anime film. However, I don't much care for Studio Ghibli stuff. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I don't like it. Except for Hisaishi's music, which I think is beautiful. I don't know why everyone seems to like these films so much. It bothers me as lots of my other views in life are congruent with the norm, or I can see why they vary. I've watched lots of Ghibli films in order to give them a chance. I've already heard lots of people arguing that the artwork is great (and I do agree it is) and that's what makes the film great, but that doesn't cut it for me; the same people who argue in this way don't seem to apply that logic to the other films they watch and so must be adapting their viewing style for Ghibli or just repeating something they heard somewhere else, not responding as they normally would (perhaps with reference to direction, plot, acting, action, scripting, etc) when asked why they like a film. Any comments or thoughts (outside of'the artwork is so good would be appreciated. | 1 | cmv_human |
Hello CMV, I am not a parent but curious as to get your opinions to CMV. I grew playing competitive soccer (worked my way up to the competitive teams from your basic youth teams) and never once received a trophy for simply participating or losing. You either got 1st, 2nd, 3rd or you got nothing it was simple as that. By losing and not being rewarded we understood we had to try harder as an individual and try harder as a team to win. This led me to become much more competitive because I wanted to earn that trophy and be on that competitive team. I really dont understand the idea of rewarding everyone for not winning, it's almost like saying "hey, even if you dont try you still win." I hear stories about teams that go 0-13 in a season and the kids walk away with a trophy, why? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a cold hearted person and love to see all children happy but I dont understand the concept of rewarding someone for losing or not trying hard enough will result in a prize. To me that just teaches a kid that NOT giving your best will still result in a prize. What lesson does that teach you when you grow up? That your failure or lack of effort will be rewarded regardless of how you performed? Doesn't that give the child a bad mentality growing up? Personally if I had a kid and heshe played a sport I wouldn't allow the coach or a parent to give them a trophy for simply participating, I would make them understand that a rewardtrophy is earned by hard work and dedication. I know not all kids are athletic but I still dont understand the concept or idea. We all know reality is a bitch and life is going to hit you with some hard lessons so why not teach your kid that hard work pays off? Again, I am not trying to sound cold but I just dont understand the concept of rewarding failurelosing, CMV...... Edit: thanks for all the answers, feedback and insight. Many of you helped CMV. Again, I hope I didn't come off as cold or inconsiderate. I have younger cousins and love to see them succeed in anything they do, especially sports. I was more interested in having a discussion as to "why" and the mentality behind it. Many of you made valid arguments and gave me some great insight. I'm happy to keep discussing if people are interested but please note I am not against the idea but was more interested in helping me change my view of it. If anything please continue to give your children positive feedback, effective communication, motivation and let them know that team work is a great thing. I recommend everyone put their kids in sports (dont push them into it but help and guide them into something they love doing or are very passionate about). It really does pay off when you get older and helps them build some self confidence and understand the dynamics of a social environment. Thanks again everyone! Edit 2: Since the discussion continues, I think children under 12 should only get participation Trophies. Once you hit that age you should be teaching your kids the fundamentals of structured team work, effort and the idea that life will not reward your for simply showing up. Giving participation trophies to kids 13 and above is not a good life lesson. If you care to continue CMV on that! Edit 3: Thanks everyone for the continued conversation, input, points of views and personal experiences. This sub is great for people who are curious as to get the other sides opinion and everyone should keep an open mind about changing their view on the matter. Now some last bit of advice for coaches and parents who put their kids in sports. PLEASE keep your eye out for the that one un-athletic kid who might not be the best on the team and make sure that hisher team mates understand this is a team event and that everyone is in this together. Some of these personal experiences shared with me shed some light on how people hated playing sports and were being bulled because they were that kid and the other kids made them feel left out. Not all kids will be good athletes but you can teach your kids to respect one another, support one another and to ensure that they understand the unity of team work. If your kid is that "all-star" on the team then make them understand this most because the other kids will look to himher to see how they treat the rest of the team. A good leader will understand this and this habit will grow with them, you just have to show them how and why. Thanks again for all the input, this is a great sub. | 1 | cmv_human |
Yesterday, there was this post in rfuturology titled [Technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed, says 140 years of data] . In the comments, a lot of people concluded that this means that in the future, technology will keep creating more jobs than it destroys. I disagree. At the moment, a five year old kid can beat a computer in a lot of things. For example, having a conversation is very hard for AI. So there are still lots of simple jobs that cannot be done by technology. As long as our civilization does not collapse, technology and AI will keep getting better. In the near future, self-driving cars will replace a lot of jobs. This kind of stuff will keep happening until mechanical brains outperform human brains, at a similar or lower cost. When that happens, human labor will become as redundant as horse labor. Change my view! [Obligatory "Humans Need Not Apply link | 1 | cmv_human |
One main argument I've seen against the Bernie Sanders "free college tuition" idea is that if everyone has a college degree, the value of a degree goes down. Is this true? In countries like Germany and Denmark, only the best of students make it into higher education, whereas in American, our standards to get into a university or a community college are laughable. Would we need to raise the bar on admission requirements if college was free? The main argument here is that making college education free in our system would end up hurting the overachieving students. | 1 | cmv_human |
Voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest. Why should I get a say in how something that I don't pay for is run? I could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense. I lost my job last month and I'm on unemployment. Why should I get a say in how much money I get when I am living off the work of others? This is just like when you are a child. You don't get to make the rules because you aren't paying the rent, and you don't get to set your allowance. Money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else. Therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society. These people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most. Also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that don't just appeal to emotion. | 1 | cmv_human |
I live in canada so I don't know how this affect other countries but You often see many youtube, TV, Radio and poster ads attacking other candidates and parties that mainly talk about how the other partycandidate would be bad for this country, the ads I have a problem with are endorsed by a political party that used taxpayer money to attack another political party. I think that to use taxpayer to further your own agenda is wrong. I think that instead of using money to fund public dialogues that they can put on public networks, this would allow them to talk about what problems they have with other parties with the the other parties having the ability to respond and rebuttle if they have proof that they are wrong. I am also not that smart so I would love to hear any problems with my logic! CMV reddit Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Both my parents are heavily anti-vax and none of their 3 kids have been vaccinated. After leaving the nest I realized just how uncommon this was, however after years of being in the main stream, I'm still not convinced that vaccines are all they are cracked up to be. Between whistle blowers (William Thomson, Scott Cooper, Andrew Wakefield etc) and corruption within the vaccine industry, it seems like something sinister is afoot. There are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest. Now I'm not antivaccine (although I haven't been immunized yet) I'm just not pro vaccine. I haven't seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go. Please change my view. | 1 | cmv_human |
Awhile ago, Facebook released several new genders - many of them seemed to come out of nowhere and almost all are incredibly confusing, over-the-top, and redundant. To preface this, I am not against anyone in the LGBT community and welcome the idea of gay marriage and things similar. However, I've never really been on-board with all these new genders. Anyway, some of the terms that come to mind are Agender and Androgynous. The mean the same thing, to not identify as any gender, so why are they two separate words? Genderfluid and Bigender seem completely redundant too - so, why even have them? I'm also not entirely sure why people can't just dress the way they want to while remaining whatever sex they were given at birth. Does it really matter if a man dresses as a woman? Does he really have to be classified as gender-fluid because it really just seems like a word that would be less blunt than cross-dressing. Again, I have nothing against that, but it seems like people are trying to make other words to someone glorify what they're doing. Also, what's the deal with "cis"? Cis-female. Cis-male. Cis-man. Cis-woman. Cisgender. If the definition of "cis" is basically people acting within the confines of their gender, why can't they just be called women and men? Why do they have to have a special name? Considering that people are giving away names to things that already exist, it seems really indicative of how strong other words in their dictionary are (see: gender-fluid and bi-gender redundancy). Again, I can't stress this enough, I have no issues with people being who they want to be and how they want to be that. It just seems overly unnecessary to have a million new Facebook gender options for things that clearly overlap each-other. A lot of this also seems more of a ploy for attention, not someone actually identifying as something. With that being said, am I just seeing this the wrong way? I get incredibly annoyed when someone tells me they're "gender-fluid" or "cis-female." It makes me believe that I may be seeing this the wrong way - or maybe these terms really are inessential and pointless? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I believe someone who has been convicted of a non violent crime should have the option to end their life in prison. So if someone is doing 20 years for drug distribution they can choose to die. This would decrease prison population and relief funding to the prison system. Less people less taxpayers have to spend. The prisoner would get to choose if they want to die, but the state would perform the execution. This would only apply to people 18 years or older. Prisoners sometimes have to endure very horrible things while in prison. Rape, sexual assault and violence affect many prisoners that are serving time for theft, drugs, etc. This would also apply to criminals who are terminally ill and suffer everyday from the side effects. People are given life sentences without parole for non violent offenses sometimes. link: I believe it is right to give these criminals an option to end their life's so they don't have to suffer in prison if they don't want to. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
To start: I am not saying that homosexuality and incest are the same thing. However, any arguments I would normally use against allowing incestuous marriage have been declared void. For example, you can't simply say it's disgusting, because a lot of people find homosexuality disgusting, and society has decided that people's rights shouldn't be inhibited by the disgust of others. Incestuous couples are more likely to have deformed children, but marriage is not about reproduction. Maybe there's some psychological affliction behind it, but homosexuality used to be classified as a disorder as well, but psychologists realized the error of their ways as it became socially acceptable. Of course, any religious objections are right out. So with the last defenses against gay marriage dismantled, I'm left without any good reason why siblings should marry each other. CMV Edit 1: Added emphasis. Edit 2: Stepping away for a bit. I'll be back in a few hours. (8:45pm, GMT) Edit 3: Deltas awarded to: uSquirrelPower for pointing out that there is a legal difference between types of classes. uthe-friendzoner made a similar argument, that the sexual attraction of incest is different than an orientation. I don't consider these sufficient reasons to continue the ban, but they are distinct from the reasons given for banning homosexuality, so they fulfill the terms of my post. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Most social progressives, love democracy, and so it is of relatively little surprise to me that as they have achieved a majority (in Reddit and the West), that they want to exercise their new-found power over reactionary groups. I would offer, however, that at one point in time they were a minority, and with the advent of freedom of speech, their voices were allowed to shine in free, open, democratic discourse. I find it very disturbing that people who claim to be supporting "social progress" in society want to begin delimiting and banning thinkers who already exist as a minority that rests outside the norm of consensual decency. You cannot use a principle of liberal social democracy, and then turn around and illiberally and antisocially try to close the door behind you. This understanding that freedom of speech is "good while it benefits us, but bad when it doesn't" is exactly the reason why it must exist, and was the very mechanism that gave us social progress: to allow individuals or minority groups to challenge the group-think of the masses. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
It appears to me that when people talk about the rise of China as a global force, all they talk about is political clout and economic strength. However, one thing which I believe is important and not many people are talking about is cultural influence. I'm not talking about GDP or lobbying power, I'm talking about blue jeans, pop music, the idea of social mobility, emancipation and suffrage for all. These are all concepts born in the West and exported all around the world, causing social changes in the cultures of the countries they take root in. More and more young Japanese are breaking off from their country's own traditions to follow Western culture, before their radicalization (also, unfortunately, facilitated by the West) blue jeans and pop music was taking the Middle East by storm, African nouveau riche seek to emulate the Western businessman lifestyle ideal of sleek cars and fat cigars. The whole idea of the Western way of life has bled into the cultures of countries all over the world, and has likely changed them almost irrevocably. However, I cannot see that the same thing has happened with regards to China. The biggest cultural exporter in the East as far as I can see is Japan, despite its smaller economy and shrinking population: people still can't get enough of Manga and anime, of Japanese fashion (the trendier edge of which is mainly a Japanese take on Western fashion), of Japanese cuisine, of the whole idea of the Japanese society as one of politeness and civility in any situation. Heck, even Japanese bands are some of the most globally popular Eastern bands (though South Korea might take the crown with regards to this one after PSY). The point I'm making is that apart from cuisine, I cannot see of any real cultural impact Chinese culture has had on the rest of the world, especially when compared to the influences of Western culture as well as Korean and Japanese culture. Because of this, I find it hard to take China seriously as a social threat, although politically and economically I accept that they are strong. | 1 | cmv_human |
Reddit is a website, a business, it is the "front page of the internet." This front page doesn't have to house hate speech or hostile ideologies. I think removing these will only make reddit a more positive and progressive place to be. I think free speech can flourish without hate speech. I think we can recognize accurately the INTENTION of certain subreddits. Some can be gross, negative or downright morbid but don't have ill intentions but I think its the intention that matters and I feel from the [announcement] that those subreddits with vile intetions will be removed while other "alternative" subreddits will be just fine. I think certain viruses have an intention to spread through the body and I think some subreddits here can be likened to viruses so I can only see a positive outcome when extracting these viruses out of the community. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Hi, CMV. So, I chose to become a vegetarian about 7 years ago. I've had trouble becoming a vegan, but I do what I can. However, recently, many of my friends have been attempting to convince me that by my own utilitarian views, neither veganism nor vegetarianism are the most moral choice, and in fact, a gluttonous amount of meat is the best for environmental, ethical, and health reasons. So far, I've been able to counter most of the evidence offered to me either with my own evidence from trusted sources or by pointing out the lack of merit from the sources given to me (lots of comic sans blogs). This is something I do honestly believe that, given enough evidence, I would change my view on, and it seems like a lot of people seem to think they have evidence that a diet of meat is better in some way that I might consider meaningful, and of the many that do, there's bound to be some that might actually have something worth considering, so please change my view.:) EDIT: I should say that I'm posting this from an American viewpoint in which most of our factory farms typically don't treat animals very well. If you live in a country in which the animals are treated with respect and then eaten, that might be a different story, but that is not the situation that I am in. Please try to consider this in addressing my CMV and presenting your evidence however your discretion guides you. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
After the number of fictional books and nonfictional books I've read, I've come to the conclusion that fiction is always more of a waste of time than nonfiction. I've read more fiction than nonfiction so let me give some examples. In the fiction category, I've read stephen king's "the long walk," "needful things," and "the shining"; I've read pretty much all of crichton's books, and almost all of dan brown books. All are quite popular books. For comparison, the last 3 nonfictions I've read are [skunk works] ," the code book] ," and Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea] " See, my view isn't that fiction is boring. However, in the limited span of time I have, I'd rather read 1000 pages worth of Introductory Chemistry, than 1000 pages worth of Needful Things; I'd have learned a lot more in The Code Book about cryptography than anything I would have learned from reading Jurassic Park (some basics about DNA and molecular engineering). Because it's such a time sink, the amount of enjoyment from reading fiction is not worth the time it takes to read it. (1000 pages would take 1-2 days to read; I'd rather spend those 1-2 days watching movies or doing other time-sinking things that provides a much greater amount of pleasure). On the other hand, reading 1000 pages of nonfiction, while it would take even longer time, but it would let me get more out of it to be worth my time. CMV that reading fiction is somehow worth the time that it takes. edit: I've changed my view in the sense that not all fiction are created equal and I probably had been reading too much shitty fiction. I will try to make some efforts to read more nonshitty fiction. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Im probably going to ramble on and such so I will make my point clear from the way I see it. Also my rhetoric is not going to be nice because its sort of half a rant too. I guess this is directed at a sort of liberalprogressive crowd, but can apply to right wing people too. Ever since atheism and anti-theism movement sprung up on reddit we have been bashing it. Some of those reasons was correct. I believe atheists used too much rhetoric such as "free thinker," "skeptic," "reason" and "logic" to push their agenda. And we used to (USED TO) have neckbeards spewing some obnoxious shit. And I agree they come off as cringy. But in general, mockery of religion is fun, really fun and FAIR! We laugh at bullshit ideas all the time. "im an atheist but please be tolerant, let them believe" or "People believe different things" or something similar. -We have such an agenda of tolerating christians because in the west because the majority is still christian, this also influences "tolerant atheists" subconsciously -We tolerate Islam because "that is the religion those people in them middle east believe in" so it would make us racist to criticize it. Like I get it Fox news is racist, but I dont have to be racist because I critizice Islam. Its like the people who try to tolerate Islam somehow think its racist to criticize it, failing to see that there is a diverse spectrum of people who believe in Islam and not just middle eastern people. Calling people racist for critizicing Islam is such a high level of mental gymnastics that I cant even. -We cant critizice Jews because that would make us literally Hitler. (I actually understand this one though) -Mormons are made fun of, but mostly they get the same treatment as christians "let people believe what they believe." -We dont respect the views of other-kin, astrologists, parapsychologists, flat earthers etc. Because? They are not a majority, nor taught to us before we could write. That is what I think most people choose to ignore. We dont have people spewing tolerance of religion because we have some genuine need to spare someones feelings. Its because christianity is popular, based on faslehood and people feel like their beliefs are under attack. When was the last time you saw someone going out of their way to defend a person who claimed to be a wolf? Oh, wait they get laughed at and mocked universally. Guy claims to believe hes literally drinking the blood of christ? Someone mocks him and gets labeled a fedora neckbeard. Like seriously if someone tells you they believe in unicorns you can probably laugh in their face like "HAHAHA, you believe that?" and no one would bat an eye. However, have long debates where you try to go into detail of the problems surrounding religion and trying to debunk it? Richard Dawkins and speakers like him get called intolerant. As if a desire to uphold truth is somehow wrong because people get their little feelings hurt. The way I see it religion is as fake as astrology or unicorns. But there is no one defending the latter. Religion is bullshit with good PR. I would prefer to keep laughing at people who think they are wolfs, but with a world where no one is trying to pretend like religion needs some sort of handicap from society to not "hurt precious feelings." I should be able to find religion absurd without being labeled "Euphoric" or "fedora wearing neckbeard." I wish we could call out bad ideas no matter how many people believed in it. I want eqaulity when it comes to mocking things. The way I see it now religion has some sort of taboo of criticism that is protecting it. The way I want our society to change its view is for people to watch all three videos below and laugh. Just for the sake of equality. Sincerely, I live in Norway so I recieve minimal damage from religion. I just wish religion did not have to have some protective shield and having it be taboo to criticize it because they will cry the loudest when mocked. People mocking stupid beliefs: - [1] - [2] - [3] Penn Jillette: Why Tolerance Is Condescending - [4] What would change my mind is either: -A huge amount of people going out of their way to prevent people from critizicing bullshit ideas such as Astrology, para-psychology etc. (people can believe what they want, tolerance, does not hurt you) -A huge appeal to mock christianity from its own communities. -Some source proving society not having a total hypocritical view of what bullshit ideas we are aloud to mock and not Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I heard Mike Huckabee say this during the first Republican Debate, and until I went online the next morning, I couldn't imagine anyone would disagree with him. People were saying this was shameful, and embarrassing to the US military, a ridiculous simplification. To be clear, I am no fan of Huckabee, and I have nothing against our military or militaries in general. That said, I think he was dead on. I think most people who don't accept this do so because they think it's crass, and brutal. Well, yeah, but it's also absolutely true. That's why the military has all those rifles and artillery and tanks and battleships and bombs and chemical weapons and knives and humvees and machine guns: for the killing of people and the breaking of things. Sure, not every member of the military's job is to be a killer, but those people are there to support the killers. The cooks, mechanics, engineers, and secretaries are all there to let everyone else kill people and break things as safely and efficiently as possible. Again, I have absolutely no problem with this from a moral perspective. I am certainly not condemning anybody, just stating facts. Most people I've seen disagree with Huckabee are just dancing around this. "Soldiers exist to protect the United States and her interests!" Sure, using violence or the threat of violence. "The army doesn't just kill people, they developed the Internet!" Yeah, as a weapon to coordinate their violence in the most efficient way possible. The internet we have now is just an unintended side effect. The US military is in a bit of a unique position, since they haven't had a lot of opportunities to do their job recently. Our military is so badass, there are not a lot of people with enough courage or stupidity to take us on. Thus, a lot of time is spent running practice drills and handing out food to people after earthquakes. That's great, but it's all a displacement activity until they need to do their real job. It's a sideshow, a distraction. The alternative would be these men sitting around, waiting for something to need destroying. We don't keep our military around and spend billions of dollars for disaster relief. We keep them around to kill people and break things. That's their real purpose, simple as that. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
If population replacement rates are below the rate of no growth or at stagnation, things are going to be better in the future. As automation continues to improve, less jobs will be available. On a nationwide scale, decreasing population means available work. Natural resources of food, water, fuel, and other materials are becoming scarcer everyday. On a global scale, less population means more available goods to all. What result (s) of an increasing population size could surpass these benefits? If we were hypothetically at the growth cap for the human population, would everybody still get frantic like when it's is brought up that the U.S. born citizen population is reproducing below replacement? Edit: it seems a lot of the response pertain to economy. I suppose I was wrong in respect to a declining population being beneficial in this aspect. However, I still seem to feel that a shrinking population would benefit us as a species. Our survival, and that of our environment, would be better off with less people. But still, I'm open to changing my view. | 1 | cmv_human |
Look, I know this is a touchy subject, and while people might say I'm young and didn't understand the complexity of wars, just hear me out. Vietnam was essentially a communist state, due to influences from China and USSR, which were alliances (the former is debatable) of Vietnam during the war. After the war, our country has suffered multiple economic depressions, and famines due to the incompetence of our liberally named Communist Party. Granted the South Vietnam government wasn't any better, but what the U.S wanted for Vietnam was for the best. I understand that, technically the US did not wage war with our people, but stood against the spread of communism in Asia, and with our strategic location, a battle surely followed. The US did not deliberately invaded our country. And look at what they did to the world. Defeated the Nazis and fascist countries, uplifted South Korea, Japan (which were both smaller and less resourceful than my country) to their respectable position on the world map today. And what had the sole communist party in my country done? Nothing but left our people in the struggle of a third-world country. And China is still brazenly harassing our borders and seas to this very day, just because our army is incapable of standing up for themselves. Please tell me if I was wrong and why the North won was a good idea. Edit: My view has changed. It was not simple as I thought it was. Generally it can be summarized into those points: involvement of China, motives and war crimes committed by the US, and there was no hope in the governing system. Communism has not helped our people a bit, but no one can really advocates for America either. We as a nation should look to develop our own path. Insights are still very much appreciated. And thanks for the discussions. | 1 | cmv_human |
I think English should not be the international language for these reasons: It's proven that is really hard to understand how to pronounce some words here uBrotherChe makes a really good point in another thread I saw. Other languages such as Spanish the pronunciation of a word is pretty straight forward. I understand that the conjugation is the only tough part and the whole gender thing might be confusing at first (not that crazy if it ends on an a it's female, except agua which can be both, the only tough part is if it end on an e). Also English is not even the most spoken language in the world where Mandarin is first followed by Spanish. English is rising only because it's commonly being taught as a second language, if you change the language it will also rise. Also the whole small scale system that English has does not even make sense like why a billion is a thousand of a million where in long scale it's a million of a million. I know this seems biased like I am arguing that Spanish should be the international language and it's my native language, but it makes more sense if it were. I didn't defend Mandarin because I've always had the impression of it being one of the hardest language to master. If it's otherwise I apologize and anyone who speaks other languages are welcome to support why your language should be the international language. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
With all that is going on with Reddit lately I think the big thing that is being ignored is that this is largely a White male community. When it functioned in that way everything seemed to go more or less fine (of course there were others interspersed but that was the majority of viewpoints). As more and more groups began to be introduced there were shall we say competing interests. They correctly are asking for space within the community as well. However, the problem is White men had already kind of adopted this space as a place where they could discuss their problems without feeling guilty etc. For example, when people complain about false rape charges getting to the front page constantly or reverse discrimination cases etc etc. I think the SJW this and that we often see is just pushback from White Men feeling "invaded" for lack of a better word. I'm not saying this is right. I think this last ush of banning subs etc also has the same implications first FatPeopleHate is seen as appealing to women and feminists. Then Coontown seen as appealing to minorities. I think its reflective of White Men feeling like all other people get to have their spaces etc. but they never do. What I got from the threads is that people feel betrayed and I believe that feeling is genuine. So here's the actual CMV. Why can't everyone just let White Guys have this one. Why can't we all just either accept that this is and will be a site that leans towards issues important to (straight) White Men and will be biased towards their opinions or leave and go to a different site. Its not like their aren't other hubs. And I'm not saying that there shouldn't be differences of opinion etc. (newsflash: not all White guys think the same). But just as anyone is welcome to watch Logo and comment on it etc no one would complain that the content is too gay or be upset if anti-gay things or things that appear to be anti-gay get the equivalent of downvoted (and no I'm not comparing experiences in any way). I also think that if people recognized this gping in there would be less abrasive push back from the trolls and "dark side" of reddit. Edit: reply from rnannyhap produced new idea that perhaps having a place that tolerates hateful views makes for an artificial influx of them. Doesn't quite change my view all the way but definitely something I hadn't considered. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
First of all, I am largely opposed to the prison-industrial complex. I feel that many of the laws behind it are arbitrary (re: the drug war and victimless crimes), and that even many of the violent criminals who are jailed don't need to be locked up for as long to prevent them from being an immediate or persistent threat. In fact, I believe that long term incarceration under harsh conditions is something which actually causes further social harm - directly to the person incarcerated and to the society which the prisoner will be released into after an extended period of incarceration. Also, if the person has dependents, they too might suffer more if their material needs are not adequately provided for. Subsequently, if some sort of punishment is required for violating some sort of socially accepted institution, then I feel that some form of shaming, shunning, and exile are possibly effective alternatives to prevent crime before we decide to incarcerate someone for an extended period of time or issue fines which they may not be able to pay. One advantage to this approach is that the punishment is more directly democratic. It's not a punishment which is wholly issued by a sitting judge who is appointed to represent the public and who arbitrarily decides a perpetrator's fate. Rather, the perpetrator, by agreeing to make public their offense, can still receive a certain degree of sympathy and forgiveness. And if they are shunned or exiled (for some indeterminate amount of time), then other members of the public can go along with that punishment to a degree they see fit. Granted, with shunning or exile the punishment would work much better with social cohesion, but if it were the accepted form of punishment then shunning or exile might be more readily accepted and enforced by the general population of an area. Admittedly, this is an aspect of society which would probably have to be reformed or evolve if a society chose to move away from incarceration, corporal punishment, and excessive fines. But if society is incapable of changing in this way.... then I'm not sure society would be able to change in other ways which would make it sustainable and tolerable to live within. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Currently, [it is a crime to lie to any federal officer.] It is an astoundingly severe crime too, carrying a maximum sentence up to five years in prison. Under the current law, it is a very serious felony to make any materially false statement to any federal agent. This law is routinely abused by the government to give them leverage over defendants. [Ken White at Popehat describes how:] Here's how it works. The feds identify some fact that they can prove. It need not be inherently incriminating; it might be whether you were at a particular meeting, or whether you talked to someone about the existence of the investigation. They determine that they have irrefutable proof of this fact. Then, when they interview you, they ask you a question about the fact, hoping that you will lie. Often they employ professional questioning tactics to make it more likely you will lie - for instance, by phrasing the question or employing a tone of voice to make the fact sound sinister. You - having already been foolhardy enough to talk to them without a lawyer - obligingly lie about this fact. Then, even though there was never any question about the fact, even though your lie did not deter the federal government for a microsecond, they have you nailed for a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 USC 1001. To be a crime under Section 1001, a statement must be material - but the federal courts have generally supported the government's position that the question is not whether a false statement actually did influence the government, but whether it was the sort of false statement that could have influenced the government. Hence, the government's chickenshit false statement trap works - even though the government agents set it up from the start. Now, however weak or strong their evidence is of the issue they are investigating, they've got you on a Section 1001 charge - a federal felony. In effect, they are manufacturing felonies in the course of investigations. I think there should be no crime here unless it can be proven that the falsehood actually impeded an investigation in a meaningful manner. Also, I think the penalty should be much less severe, more like a misdemeanor. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I'm a programmer, and I am really interested in data science and machine learning. I think it started at my current job, where occasionally I was told to scrape websites and collect leads for the marketers (which is probably me favorite part of the job). It feels really fulfilling to me to make something (a bot) that does what a person couldn't do in a month's full time work. That, and it feels rewarding knowing I gathered something (s) with immediate marketable value. That, and that, and the idea of all of the potential uses and benefits to having this information. I've been to a lot of hackathons (programming-marathons) and open-data is an awesome opportunity to make something cool and resume-building quickly (hackathons are usually only 24-48 hours overnight). The more data out there, the more possibilities there are to help the public or invent something novel. I think of the government the same way, if the data they collect and use helps their ability to govern then I am all for it. And on a personal level, I don't care that whoever is tracking my phone, reading my emails, whatever. I'm just glad someone is using my information to make my life and the lives of others to be better. Edit: you guys got me -If the NSA collected less information, it could be more useful and usable. -Your Emails, much like music or physical letters, should be your own private property, even if they aren't now -I can't both agree that the NSA should collect this information and the NSA should do this legally, because they are collecting it illegally it is a logical fallacy -By agree to this, I take away other people's privacy rights, and that's not okay -There could be new data or ways of analyzing it that would more seriously violate privacy or give power, and this is setting a bad precedent -Mass surveillance is bad historically Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
In spite of the imperfections of the USA and Europe, it still remains a truth that pretty much all of the most desirable places in the world are run by Caucasian Westerners. The quality of life for all people, even nonwhites, is generally correlated with the percent of white Westerners in leadership; Black Canadians have better lives than black Americans who have better lives than Jamaicans who have better lives than Congolese. This is true on a global scale; lily-white cities and countries generally report the best quality of life and highest GDP per capita. [The most developed countries in the world are almost all white-run or dependent on white-run countries]; even Japan is dependent on white Westerners for trade, military, disaster relief, and [entertainment] , and in spite of attempting to [Charles Atlas] its way to development with superhuman feats of education and work ethic, Japan's GDP per capita still lags that of France. South Korea is the same way, with an even more endemic academic cheating culture. The problem is that nonwhites look at the few atrocities that whites have committed as representative of the entire white race, when even [Chris Rock] acknowledges that white rule has had its share of pluses for the African American community. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
First things first: I know this sounds kind of stupid, but 100 serious here; not a troll. Dogs are not Disney cartoons. Yes, they're thinking, feeling creatures, but their ways of communication could hardly be any more different from ours. A dog leaping onto you is not expressing affection; it's literally asserting dominance. A dog dragging you by the leash is not eager to play; it's showing you who the top dog is and ordering you to follow the pack leader (itself). A dog making eye contact is, again, asserting dominanceread: not affectionately gazing into its master's eyes. The list goes on. Seems like we've anthropomorphizing our cuddly partners a bit too much. Chances are, it's probably not thinking what most people think it's thinking. A dog that looks "depressed" to most of us is really just an obedient dog with a responsible owner. Man's best friend? That's some grade-a bull. Man's best friend is none other than fellow man. Dogs have no capacity for logic reasoning skills and will bark at any stranger to feel better about themselves. We don't understand them very well, and they understand us even less. They've helped our hunter-gatherer ancestors, and are still useful to people with certain disabilities today. But that makes them no more than co-workers and can hardly be considered potential friends, given our inherent differences in nature. Dog experts of reddit, I'd love to have my mind changed on this one because I literally can't look at dogs anymore without thinking they are incredibly savage and overly-hierarchical creatures undeserving of our attention. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Would you go to Enterprise and rent a car for 24 months? That's very similar to what a lease is. 1. Suze Orman, very rich lady and personal finance guru, hates car leases in all situations. [If anyone ever brings up the topic of leasing a car, she just gives them a Suze Smackdown.] 2. People lease cars so they can afford to drive something they cannot buy. "You're spending money you don't have to impress people you don't know," Suze says. You should go to a used car lot and find something you can own for the same payment as what you would lease. It might not be that hard, the first owner took a 20-30 hit in value as soon as he took ownership. You might find the car 2 or 3 years old and you can buy with the same money. 3. When you look at the details, it just doesn't add up to a good deal. You have to come up with a large down payment, pay monthly, and at the end of it all, you own nothing. To re up your lease, they expect another large down payment for a car you already have. Their are milage restrictions. Once I knew a guy who lived in Detroit and wanted to go to Chicago for the weekend, but was afraid to drive his car because he calculated that his daily commute was going to put him very close to or slightly beyond the mileage limit by lease end. You're paying monthly for a car that you can't drive whenever you want because they're going to charge you .25 per mile over the limit. If you go 3000 miles over (which could happen in one road trip) that's 750 you have to pay just to give the car back. Oh and you're also paying through the nose for any dent, ding, bump, stain or scratch in the car. Unless it's a company providing a company car for business purposes. Your employer isn't in the business of owning, servicing and managing vehicles for the long term so a lease makes sense for them. They dont have time to sell a car when they're done with it, or deal with ownership. All the drawbacks of leasing such as mileage fees, they probably just pass that on to employee driving it. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I'm not a native english speaker so excuse me. Alright, it seems like in this world there are only the good things and the bad things, the black and white, and though I believe the world is not black and white and there is a grey area in between, what is that grey area? I haven't been able to figure it out like, for example: a man steals food from a shop because he doesn't have enough money and he needs to feed his kids, then he gets caught and taken to prison. Though he did something "bad" (stealing) for a "good" cause (feed his children), he still did something bad therefore he gets a punishment. Where's the grey in that? I don't know. That's one of my confusions, the grey between the black and white. To be clear, I'm not bigoted or religious and I understand there are diferent types of good and different types of bad depending on your context, where you live. The other thing I'm confused about and that is fairly linked to the first one is if there's something besides "the good" and "the bad." I personaly live by trying to do the good but I also think that the bad is necesary until a certain degree. CMV! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Redditors main real concerns about the website were monetization and the limiting of "free speech" in the rfatpeoplehate drama. Reddit has still brought many people on board independent of Huffman to help advance the site and create revenue. Further having money and people behind him will influence Huffman and his situation is very different from when he founded Reddit. In regards to "free speech" the subreddits that make Reddit the awesome website it is are all heavily moderated. The subreddits targeted were brigading other subreddits. The administration's views on hate speech won't change, they even said in their announcement that, If the reddit community cannot learn to balance authenticity and compassion, it may be a great website but it will never be a truly great community. While there will be more communication on things like the Victoria firing Reddit is still headed in exactly the same direction. To be clear I am perfectly content with the monitization of reddit and don't see it as a big deal. Ellen Pao's hatred came from her being the face of Reddit that started the changes. People latched onto her lacking resume and questionable sexual harassment lawsuit to demonize her and transform her into everything that is wrong with Reddit. She is still working at Reddit, just not as the public face of the company. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
Apologies in advance, as I'm sure this topic has been done to death in light of recent events. I read a few of the posts and they really didn't do anything to help my confusion. Viscerally, I feel like the two are different things and should be treated as such, but every argument I'm seeing seems to fall flat for me and I'm left with the default position: the two are functionally equivalent. The primary argument I've read against my view is that there are biological differences between how men and women are wired mentally. However, most of the papers I've read on the matter are based on [population studies] that tease out group differences from large and varying datasets. Brains aren't monolithic things that are all one way or another - for that matter, new neuronal connections and pathways can be influenced by surroundings, behavior and a host of other factors. If [where you live can determine whether or not you develop schizophrenia] , then it's quite possible that growing up with black siblings can subtely affect the brain connections of a white girl from Montana. Stepping back though, why should empirically-observable differences'legitimize' obvious differences in behavior? Our understanding of brain physiology is nowhere near precise enough to give us a 1:1 correlation between behaviors and biochemistry, and even if it were, it's not clear to me at all that someone's behavior should be invalidated because it doesn't map to our limited biological understanding. Another argument I read differentiated gender as an individualistic identity and ethnicity as a group identity. I like the thought, but just like brains, black identity isn't a monolithic thing. For every Rachel Dolezal - there are likely thousands of non-black people living in predominantly black neighborhoods, developing identities not terribly different from the black people they most often interact with - your Eminems, to use a terrible example. Saying lack of pigment invalidates that identity seems functionally identical to saying lack of a particular sex-characteristic invalidates a gender identity. Feel free to point me to a discussion, if you don't want to rehash this. I'm pretty open to having my mind changed on this one, as my feelings seem to be in disagreement with my reasoning. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I'm sure we've all seen and heard of police officers who were aggressive and violent while on duty, but much less frequently do we hear of officers who have friendly interactions with civilians when there is no clear or present danger present. I've seen a few videos on the internet of cops dancing at block parties or playing a short round of cards in a park but none have gone viral like [this video] of an NYPD officer dancing at the NYC LGBT pride parade this past weekend. The general consensus is polarized; some people like myself are perfectly fine, even happy, that some officers are finding enjoyment and positive interactions with civilians in their day-to-day work rather than hostility and aggression; others feel that this interaction was completely unprofessional and that the officer should be fired or at least punished. I believe that the officer shouldn't face any punishment for simply dancing with a civilian for less than 20 seconds at a parade with clearly no imminent threat or danger present. My logic behind this is that many officers won't be punished for using excessive force or even wrongfully killing someone, so why should an officer be punished for taking 20 seconds to dance with a friendly civilian at a parade. Even if we lived in a world where excessively violent officers were rightfully punished, I would still be angry if this cop were to be punished for dancing at a parade. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I'll try not to spoil anything here for people who haven't watched Game of Thrones, but this post is specifically about events in that show. So if you don't watch it, or intend to, perhaps this is a good time to skedaddle. [Tonight's episode featured a rape scene.] (sp) I Googled'game of thrones rape' to find that within an hour of the episode airing, several prominent publications had already posted articles with titles like'Did Game of Thrones go too far?"Was that rape scene necessary?' etc. etc. I don't even want to check Twitter because I have a feeling it's full of the same. A rape scene! Outrage! When will rape culture stop!? GoT went too far! Yet the show also depicts HUNDREDS, literally HUNDREDS of murders. Murders of babies. Murders of parents in front of the children. Casual murder. There was a murder of an unborn child in one episode. Yet the only reaction people have to those is that "they miss that character" or "OMG I DID NOT SEE THAT COMING." HERE'S WHAT I'M NOT SAYING: I'm not saying that rape is acceptable, or that we should just sit back and enjoy it when it's depicted on film. That scene was hard as hell to watch. I'm also not saying that we should be outraged that Game of Thrones (or any show for that matter) is ultra violent and depicts so much murder. But I think it's absurd to get worked up about a show depicting something terrible (rape) while totally ignoring that it constantly depicts something that is, in my opinion, worse (murder). Change my view. EDIT: I guess I need to clarify a bit, as lots of people have posted regarding what it means to be "offendedoutraged." I have no problem with people being personally offended by something, either because it invokes a memory, or they simple find it difficult to sit through. To clarify my position, being offended by something, and then taking to the internet to say that the show's creators were WRONG to show it, is ridiculous. Example of what I'm talking about (scroll down for Twitter reactions as well): [here] EDIT 2: Really wish I had worded things better, but it's fine, I think it still made for a good discussion. I'm gonna stop responding to most things now, because I think enough people share my view that I'm not necessarily needed. Also, I do apologize if this ruffled any feathers or brought up any rough memories for anyoneit's always challenging to discuss rape in a careful yet constructive way, so I hope it went that way for the most part. Thanks all! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
You always hear the saying, "it's like comparing apples and oranges," in a way that implies that it's silly to compare. This is false though and I would like the chance to prove to you that apples are the better, more versatile fruit. Alcohol: drinking is awesome and fun. Rarely do you hear about anything orange though, outside of being a garnish or in liquers. Apples are the full feature alcohol fruit that can come in cider or wine form, as well and being used in the same fashions oranges could, liquers and garnishes. No one orders an orange wine because they just aren't common, and that's because they aren't very good! Apple is even sometimes used in beer, albeit orange is more common for that. Food: oranges are pretty good for food, salads sauces and such, but what about an orange pie? As an American the apple pie is a quintessential food associated with America. That may not sway non Americans, with that I say, what about pork? You don't put an orange in a pigs mouth when you roast it, nope that's an apple. Both can be used in a variety of ways, but pie and pork gives apple the advantage. Diversity: apples have over 7,000 varieties, oranges don't even come close to that. Juice: both make fine juices, but apple has far more variety to create a wide appeal. Apple juice also comes in carbonated form commonly. That's pretty cool. Pop culture: the technology company Apple owes most of it's success because of the apple, spwcifically McIntosh apples. If macs were called "Navels" or "Valencia" instead would Apple have been so successful? Not a chance orange fans, sorry to burst your bubble. Also Forrest Gump's infamous line, "life is like a crate of apples..." Would never work with oranges due to lack of variety. Lastly, there's no Johnny Orangeseed, check and mate. Love to hear orange fans change my mind though, let's see it. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I can't think of anything redeeming about makeup. 1) It takes forever to put on. I feel like this is most of the reason women are given a reputation for taking ages to ready themselves, and given that I think it's unnecessary, it's actually a waste of time no matter how long it takes. 2) It's harmful. Not only physically, where it may causes skin problems, headaches, premature aging, cancer, allergies, other skin diseases, and other things, but it can be harmful to the self-image of the woman wearing makeup, making them dependent upon the makeup, feeling ugly without it, etc. 3) It's disingenuous. I think of it as false advertising. Celebrities are a big indication of this to me, many of them don't look particularly nice without makeup on, and with regular women the drop in attractiveness without makeup is generally even more noticeable. This is all that comes to mind at the moment. CMV. EDIT: Sorry, there's tons of long replies, I don't know if I'll be able to get to all of them. If I haven't addressed one of your points in my responses to other comments, I'm sorry, I'm trying my best. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [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] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! | 1 | cmv_human |
So neither side of this debate feels morally right for me to be on, but I think logically, I'd have to support the conservative side of the argument. All modern economic transactions involving physical items (no stocks, capital, etc.) can be simplified down to a trade of money for labor. Yes, you can buy an item off the shelf at someplace like Target, but what you're really buying is the labor involved in making that item, the item being the end result of it. In other words, it is impossible to buy a physical item that is not shaped and made valuable by labor. In this sense, what you do when you walk to a pizzaria and buy a pizza is directly contract the labor of the pizza maker in exchange for money (as opposed to indirect contracting through a store, e.g. DiGornios). Because of this, businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual, for any reason. If this is NOT the case, and some outside authority can force a person to preform labor they don't wish to preform, that could be seen as a type of slavery (I hate to use the term), because an outside authority is forcing a person, under the threat of force, to labor, even when that person doesn't want to. So prove me wrong everyone, help me come to better formulate and understand my own ideas! That's what this sub is about, after all. Please excuse the weird grammar and sentence structure, I just woke up | 1 | cmv_human |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild
🚀 Introduction
Recent advances in large language models have enabled them to reach a level of text generation comparable to that of humans. These models show powerful capabilities across a wide range of content, including news article writing, story generation, and scientific writing. Such capability further narrows the gap between human-authored and machine-generated texts, highlighting the importance of machine-generated text detection to avoid potential risks such as fake news propagation and plagiarism. In practical scenarios, the detector faces texts from various domains or LLMs without knowing their sources.
To this end, we build a comprehensive testbed for machine-generated text detection, by gathering texts from various human writings and machine-generated texts generated by different LLMs. The data in this repository is used to evaluate the effectiveness of machine-generated detection methods, as described in our paper titled "MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild" (available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13242). We invite you to test your own detection methods on our testbed and encourage you to star our Github repo.
📚 Citation
If you use this dataset in your research, please cite it as follows:
@misc{li2024mage,
title={MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild},
author={Yafu Li and Qintong Li and Leyang Cui and Wei Bi and Zhilin Wang and Longyue Wang and Linyi Yang and Shuming Shi and Yue Zhang},
year={2024},
eprint={2305.13242},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.CL}
}
We welcome contributions to improve this dataset! If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to reach out at yafuly@gmail.com.
- Downloads last month
- 2
Size of downloaded dataset files:
554 MB
Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:
320 MB
Number of rows:
436,606